Originally Posted by Cole94

Thanks, I will be 18 in May. I try not to generalize people based off the experience that I've been generalized as well. It sucks being lumped in with a negative stereotype, so judging people as individuals is a much better practice.

You speak much wisdom. I hope your attitude of stopping the negative stereotypes rubs off on many of us.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

14.7 million in 8 years for W and 14.7 million in 3 years for Obama. I see where Newt gets his figures for this statement. I didn't see a race or creed, it was more,' Hey we got a lot of folks on Food Stamps'.

I still cannot see, either party making a dent in this figure.

No, as of October, it was 14.7 for Bush and 14.2 for Obama (and Oct saw the first decline of 40K), and you can only get those numbers by immediately attributing to Obama those that came on from the day of his inauguration - which should be obvious to anyone, except a moron, as being patently absurd.

Also, as the article that I posted notes, it is important to understand this –

Of those whose income was low enough to qualify, only 54 percent actually signed up in 2002, but that rose steadily to 72 percent by fiscal 2009, the latest USDA figures show

It wasn’t just that the economy got worst or that eligibility was expanded, it was that more people who were eligible took more advantage of it. USDA attributes the greater participation to more outreach by the states to get eligible families with children to use the benefit and to moving away from paper food stamps to the EBT cards that look like debit cards and take much of the social embarrassment of being on assistance out of the picture when standing in the grocery line.

Gingrich is an a-hole tapping into the frayed heartstrings of a political party now consisting mostly of a-holes so as to bring that sociopathic value system to center stage for the entire country.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

If they're lying about it, then we wouldn't really know how they voted, would they?

I don't think that many people lie to exit pollsters. Now some may refuse to talk to the pollsters, which may or may not skew the results. However, I think most of these researchers are pretty sophisticated and can control for these kinds of events.

I think we need to assume that Blacks vote the way they do because they agree with more of the Democratic agenda than they do with the Republican agenda, not because they're afraid of big bad Jesse Jackson or big bad Al Sharpton. And I don't have a problem with the existence of Black Republicans such as Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Allen West, J. C. Watts, Michael Steele, or Herman Cain. I don't agree with them on the issues (particularly Cain), but they have a right to believe what they want and push whatever politics they want to.

This hit the nail on the head.

Let me explain something, and this is a conversation from inside the Young Black Adult community (on Twitter and Facebook). Older Blacks tend to pay attention to Sharpton and Jackson b/c they were (edit): new voters back when the marches, etc. were taking place. Now we call Sharpton and Jackson the "Civil Rights Ambulance Chasers" because they did their job back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. but are still attempting to stay relevant. It's outdated, old guard tatics that they're using, like bringing race into political issues. In 2010 they are trying to lead issues that people my age should be leading.

Older African American views on social issues? Suprise! They are socially conservative. Don't support abortion, gay rights, or pro-immigration policies. Regardless of race, it's a generational difference of opinion.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just wanted to remind everyone that about 30 percent of food stamp families have earned income, which means someone in that family is working. About 20 percent have an elderly member and more than 25 percent have a disabled member. There is some overlap -- you could imagine a family where one member is disabled and another works. However, most people on food stamps are not sitting all day in front of the boob tube eating cheez doodles -- an awful lot of them are cleaning our offices, mowing our lawns, and bussing tables at restaurants.

And working at Wal-Mart.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I think we need to assume that Blacks vote the way they do because they agree with more of the Democratic agenda than they do with the Republican agenda, not because they're afraid of big bad Jesse Jackson or big bad Al Sharpton.

It could be. And while my comments here really are more about socioeconomic class than race, I'm always skeptical of leaders who gain the most power, media attention and votes when more of their constituents are economically depressed, and whether the policies they pursue are good for the people or good for their career. If Black America rose to par with White America in terms of barometers such as income and education, Jackson and Sharpton would be largely irrelevant.

What is "White America?"

Originally Posted by The Rani

Well, I was thinking of what you said here:


In what way do you see Democrats helping out "minorities," and not just "poor folks?"
The segregation example was a good one, but are there any modern-day ones that you can think of?
Maybe Latinos and the immigration issue would be one example, but I can't think of an equivalent one for black people, or any other minority group.

Well, with minorities, the argument could be made that Democrats have supported groups like gays through repeal of DODT and among immigrants (mostly Hispanic), the DREAM Act. Hmmm.... there aren't that many examples now that you mention it.

Re-evaluating my earlier post, I guess Black People just agree with Democratic values. One of them being to assist the less fortunate more often than not, which usually translates into assistance for our own race. Even if the socio-economic issues are self-inflicted, the Democratic Party tends to give people extra chances. Those extra chances are what got many poor families out of poverty.

Actually, if you divide up the vote on the CRA not only by party but also by region (south and non-south), non-southern Democrats supported the Act more than non-southern Republicans, and southern Democrats more than southern Republicans. The party discrepancy is explained by the fact that there were a lot more southern Democrats than southern Republicans, and southern politicians of either party tended to oppose the Act.

In addition, we need to recognize what happened as a result of the passage of the Act in terms of party alignment and the consequences for the parties. Here is something that James Farmer of the Congress of Racial Equality reported about a conversation with Lyndon Johnson after passage of the CRA:

I asked him how he got to be the way he was. He said, “What do you mean?” I said, “Well, here you are, calling senators, twisting their arms, threatening them, cajoling them, trying to line up votes for the Civil Rights Bill when your own record on civil rights was not a good one before you became Vice President. So what accounted for the change?” Johnson thought for a moment and wrinkled his brow and then said, “Well, I’ll answer that by quoting a good friend of yours and you will recognize the quote instantly. ‘Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, I’m free at last.’”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...#ixzz1kPJ5TwK0

What did LBJ mean by this? I take it to mean that, as a politician from a Southern state, he was not free to fully endorse civil rights. As president, though, it was "Texas, Schmexas." His constituency was the whole country. He also commented after signing the Act that he had just handed over the south to the Republicans for a generation, and of course he was right.

But now put those two together. By coming out in front on civil rights (as the Republicans had traditionally done), the Democrats lost the South. By taking advantage of this and seizing the South, Republicans were obligated no longer to be out in front on civil rights. Ever since the party was formed in the 1850s, the South had been enemy territory for the GOP. The party held the Northeast, the upper Midwest, the mountain states, and the West Coast, while the Democrats always took the South. The Democrats did have some support in the Northeast and West Coast, too, especially among immigrants and their recent descendants, hence the possibility of results like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El...ollege1916.svg

1916 was a blowout year for Woodrow Wilson. Even so, he lost the Northeast except for New Hampshire and the entire upper Midwest. To put it another way, every state won by his Republican opponent was in the Northeast, the upper Midwest, or the West Coast. Now compare that to the result in 2008:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El...ollege2008.svg

Obama took the Northeast, the upper Midwest, and the West Coast in a lock, but he won only three states in the South (Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida). That's the usual pattern nowadays, and it's a near-complete reversal of the way things were prior to the 1960s. The Republicans haven't just gained the South, they've also LOST their old strongholds.

Why? Because the actions they had to take in order to win the South were the same actions that lost them the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast. And they are also what cost them the black vote. It's not that the Republicans have become overt racists; that's not true. What is true is that they have ceased to be champions of racial equality, ceding that to the Democrats, while Democrats have ceded the southern white vote to the GOP. And so the parties have traded positions almost precisely.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The problem with the approach of the Democrats is that it improves nothing. A small handout here and there is not going to change anyone's circumstances.

It's not a small handout when it is keeping your kid from going hungry. Something you pathetic excuses for human beings on the Right don't seem quite able to grasp.

What people need are jobs and the sociopaths that pass for the GOP today are doing everything to prevent that.

After the biggest debt bust in our lifetimes, due to idiotic markets-know-best finally coming to its inevitable consequences (although, like zombies, still trying to eat peoples brains even today), households are saving (deleveraging debt) and businesses are sitting on their cash. We are not going to become net exporters for any time into the foreseeable future. That leaves only one entity that can spend. It is simply the paradox of thrift - somebody has to be spending in order for the economy to grow and provide jobs.

The only thing keeping this economy going is net federal spending, i.e. deficit spending. There's just enough there for us to muddle through (and yet, remain highly vulnerable to any geopolitical economic swan that comes along and tips us into recession or something worse). But GOP idiots are fighting that every step of the way. Preventing sufficent federal spending has way more to do with why people are relying on food stamps than any of your out-of-wedlock or other Right wing nuttery nostrums could ever muster.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What is "White America?"

I think the answer is pretty obvious based on the context I used it in.

I'm not sure if you are trying to insinuate racism here or not -- frankly your comment puzzles me.

Originally Posted by Cole94

Well, with minorities, the argument could be made that Democrats have supported groups like gays through repeal of DODT and among immigrants (mostly Hispanic), the DREAM Act. Hmmm.... there aren't that many examples now that you mention it.

Re-evaluating my earlier post, I guess Black People just agree with Democratic values. One of them being to assist the less fortunate more often than not, which usually translates into assistance for our own race. Even if the socio-economic issues are self-inflicted, the Democratic Party tends to give people extra chances. Those extra chances are what got many poor families out of poverty.

And Democrats still support Affirmative Action, which is not limited to socioeconomics. This is tied into their "big tent" value ethic. Democrats are inclusive.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

I didn't know G. W. Bush signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Silly me; all this time I thought that was Clinton.

The DINOs like Clinton, Rubin and Summers ("new Democrats") were carrying out the Reagan program. But Bush "the financial fraud president" appointed regulators who did no regulating, and he pushed deregulation even further. And Bush gave the Wall St. bandits lots of bailouts with no strings attached. Then Obama continued the bailouts, but attached strings and made a start at reform (Dodd-Frank with a powerful consumer protection agency that the Republicans are trying to block).

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What is "White America?"

I think the answer is pretty obvious based on the context I used it in.

I'm not sure if you are trying to insinuate racism here or not -- frankly your comment puzzles me.

It's not a trick question. What is "White America?"

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

It's not a trick question. What is "White America?"

In this context, simply the collective experience of everyone who is (a) white and (b) American. Simple enough (and I thought obvious enough, but apparently not).

Why didn't you ask what "Black America" was? Was that obvious to you but the meaning of "White America" wasn't?

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

It's not a trick question. What is "White America?"

In this context, simply the collective experience of everyone who is (a) white and (b) American. Simple enough (and I thought obvious enough, but apparently not).

What is the "collective experience" of everyone who is white and American?

Originally Posted by playwrite

It's not a small handout when it is keeping your kid from going hungry. Something you pathetic excuses for human beings on the Right don't seem quite able to grasp.

What people need are jobs and the sociopaths that pass for the GOP today are doing everything to prevent that.

After the biggest debt bust in our lifetimes, due to idiotic markets-know-best finally coming to its inevitable consequences (although, like zombies, still trying to eat peoples brains even today), households are saving (deleveraging debt) and businesses are sitting on their cash. We are not going to become net exporters for any time into the foreseeable future. That leaves only one entity that can spend. It is simply the paradox of thrift - somebody has to be spending in order for the economy to grow and provide jobs.

The only thing keeping this economy going is net federal spending, i.e. deficit spending. There's just enough there for us to muddle through (and yet, remain highly vulnerable to any geopolitical economic swan that comes along and tips us into recession or something worse). But GOP idiots are fighting that every step of the way. Preventing sufficent federal spending has way more to do with why people are relying on food stamps than any of your out-of-wedlock or other Right wing nuttery nostrums could ever muster.

As usual, you've illustrated the lunacy of the left adequately.

Government spending will solve our problems, despite the fact that we can only continue to spend by borrowing money from China and devaluing our currency. Because no country ever got into trouble doing that before. And the government spending money it doesn't have is a surefire way to create economic growth in the private sector.

Makes total sense. It's worked every time it's been tried.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What is the "collective experience" of everyone who is white and American?

I was very clearly speaking in the context of overall economic and educational achievements. Not sure why you can't comprehend that. Or maybe you do, and you're asking leading questions trying to uncover some sinister, racist motive.

For that matter, what is the collective experience of everyone who is black and American? Again I ask, why don't you question that one, but only when a reference to white folks is made?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That isn't true, though. Eisenhower (R) is the one who sent the National Guard to enforce Brown v. Board of Education. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, more Republicans voted for it than Democrats. The segregationists were all in the Democratic Party. What happened is that enough Democrats (including obviously Lyndon Johnson who was president at the time) finally broke with their own party and voted for it. The Republicans had always been for it.

The Republican candidate in 1964 opposed the civil rights bill, and carried the deep south for the GOP for the first time. The Goldwater faction proceeded to take over the Republican Party and adopt the Goldwater line from 1968 onward.

The problem with the approach of the Democrats is that it improves nothing. A small handout here and there is not going to change anyone's circumstances.

The problems facing the black community at this point are no different than the problems facing society at large, they're just worse. And they're not things that can be easily fixed by government action. The biggest one of all is probably the out-of-wedlock birth rate and the disintegration of the family. There is no government program, and no amount of spending, that can fix that problem. Regardless of skin color, being born out of wedlock and raised in a single parent home is a guarantee of severe disadvantage. Black children born and raised in an intact two parent home are no worse off economically and educationally than the national average. White children born out of wedlock are as disadvantaged as black children born into the same situation. Almost the entire disparity between blacks and other groups can be explained statistically by a high out-of-wedlock birth rate.

Knowing that fact, what is the government or any politician supposed to do about it? You can't go around prosecuting people who have children without being married first.

At least you are closer to being factual in this post. Something worth replying to.

It is true that welfare alone can't fix the "problem." The Democrats are interested in more than handouts. They have policy differences that would address the great inequality in this country.

What happened is that many blacks who benefitted from the civil rights era moved out of the black community, and those left behind were the poorest. Then all the anti-poverty programs stopped, and a program to increase inequality was instituted by Reagan. The black community broke down, and there was little left there except drugs, hip-hop culture, and sparse government help.

Education needs to be improved. Young blacks need an alternative to the culture of poverty, drugs and rap music and the anti-intellectual attitude. They have little hope in this economy, and so they adopt a culture of rampant sex and drugs. The guidance and security that was provided by the old black community needs to be reestablished. More blacks are moving out of the inner cities now. More of them need to enter the middle class now too. In politics, an approach to taxes, spending, infrastructure, regulation, crime, drugs, and education that leads to the equality that existed in America before Reagan is what is needed. Beyond that, Blacks themselves need to educate their own youth, as Jesse Jackson and Bill Cosby were doing, so they can see an alternative to the drugs and sex culture of the post-60s black ghettoes. It's true that white politicians can't do much about that, but maybe an Obama could.

Black children born and raised in an intact two parent home are no worse off economically and educationally than the national average.

I don't know if that's true; worth a look. Where do you get your info and stats?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Beyond that, Blacks themselves need to educate their own youth, as Jesse Jackson and Bill Cosby were doing, so they can see an alternative to the drugs and sex culture of the post-60s black ghettoes. It's true that white politicians can't do much about that, but maybe an Obama could.

Well, the old saying was that only Nixon could go to China, and maybe a similar line of reasoning would apply here. One of the problems facing the "post-60s black ghettoes" is that any attempt to do these things is seen as selling out, as "acting white." Cosby in particular has been outspoken about wanting to see that culture change, away from the "gangsta" meme and toward education and family, and he was "greeted" with being called "Oreo" and "Uncle Tom".

reply to summerinthefall: And that. I wasn't sure which party started Affirmative Action. (had a pretty good idea though)

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

What is the "collective experience" of everyone who is white and American?

I was very clearly speaking in the context of overall economic and educational achievements.

That doesn't answer the question. What is the "collective experience" of everyone who is white an American?

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

That doesn't answer the question. What is the "collective experience" of everyone who is white an American?

I still say it was obvious what I meant based on context.

I think I'm wasting my time here.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

That argument is irrelevant, because times have changed and the world has moved on. The "Dixiecrats" are all dead. It is true that a few of them, like Strom Thurmond, switched parties and became Republicans. But they also renounced racism and segregation before doing so. And like I said, they're dead now anyway. Until he died a few years ago, the Democrats had a former KKK leader (Robert Byrd) in their leadership.

Bottom line, the ending of segregation is not a legitimate explanation for the move to the Democrats. They were dragged along kicking and screaming, whereas the Republicans were already in favor of it. And race is an extremely poor explanation for the South moving to the Republicans. But the Democrats will always make that argument, because it's all they have. If they couldn't accuse their opponents of racism they wouldn't know what to do.

Not true. The Democrats are addressing inequality caused by trickle-down economics.

That in turn is all the Republicans offer. The blacks are not going to support the trickle-down policy, because they know, whether spelled out or not, that the trickle-down policy is based on resentment by whites of "their hard-earned" tax money going to help "lazy people who don't work and instead get librul politicians to steal money from them for welfare." They know that the "lazy people" referred to are mostly "blacks who get on welfare in order to get tax money for having children out-of-wedlock." The trickle-down economics policies are code words for closet racism, and the blacks know it. The Dixiecrats who switched to become Republicans and their successors have all adopted the trickle-down economics line. Their real feelings come out now and then, as Trent Lott showed. And as Gingrich is showing now.

The northern Democrats were not dragged along kicking and screaming. They led the fight for civil rights, voting rights, and the war on poverty. John F. Kennedy was hesitant at first, because he knew the political power of southern Democrats. But he got out front in August 1963, and his brothers jumped in whole-heartedly. The northern Democrats (and a few southern ones) lined up behind them. The ending of segregation and the old bars to black voting is a completely valid reason for blacks switching their loyalty to Democrats. A Democratic administration passed the bills (Kennedy-Johnson), and enforced civil rights laws in the south in the 60s. The Republicans ran candidates who opposed civil rights (Goldwater), or adopted a southern strategy of appealing to closet-racist slogans (Nixon, Reagan).

And blacks understand that government is needed to improve peoples' conditions. It helps them, and so they understand that it helps everyone. They are not fooled by libertarian trickle-down economics, unless they are rich tycoons like Herman Cain. But trickle-down economics is everything that Republicans offer (besides religious prejudice and militarism; and the latter usually results in more black folks being sent overseas to die in the stupid wars, and blacks understand that too).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...What happened is that many blacks who benefitted from the civil rights era moved out of the black community, and those left behind were the poorest. Then all the anti-poverty programs stopped, and a program to increase inequality was instituted by Reagan. The black community broke down, and there was little left there except drugs, hip-hop culture, and sparse government help.

Education needs to be improved. Young blacks need an alternative to the culture of poverty, drugs and rap music and the anti-intellectual attitude. They have little hope in this economy, and so they adopt a culture of rampant sex and drugs. The guidance and security that was provided by the old black community needs to be reestablished. More blacks are moving out of the inner cities now. More of them need to enter the middle class now too. In politics, an approach to taxes, spending, infrastructure, regulation, crime, drugs, and education that leads to the equality that existed in America before Reagan is what is needed. Beyond that, Blacks themselves need to educate their own youth, as Jesse Jackson and Bill Cosby were doing, so they can see an alternative to the drugs and sex culture of the post-60s black ghettoes. It's true that white politicians can't do much about that, but maybe an Obama could...

What is the "drugs and sex culture?"

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

That doesn't answer the question. What is the "collective experience" of everyone who is white an American?

I still say it was obvious what I meant based on context.

And I say don't use expressions unless you are prepared to clarify what they mean?

Best...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

And I say don't use expressions unless you are prepared to clarify what they mean?

You didn't answer any of my questions. Why do you expect an answer to yours?