The Tea Party is Not Racist

[quarky]

I can't believe we haven't been rid of taxes completely yet.
It wouldn't be very hard to do.
Stuff would cost a bit more, but it always does.

No, I'm not Steve Forbes.

No taxes! Never!

Say it people.

[varwoche]

It's amazing to watch as everyone misses the point of the Sherrod tape. What's more amazing are the apologists for Breitbart's dishonest slime.

[Accidental Martyr]

Vilsack to apologize to ousted USDA worker.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_usda_racism_resignation_vilsack

[Juniversal]

Breitbart: "It's all a misunderstanding..."

Conservative Breitbart says media, government 'misconstrued' videos

NEW YORK — The conservative blogger behind the controversial video that led to Shirley Sherrod’s forced resignation from the U.S. Department of Agriculture said the footage was released in order to highlight racist behavior in the NAACP, not to target the former government official.

“I feel bad that they made this about her,” Andrew Breitbart told NBC News on Wednesday. “You do see that she mentions a transformation and I’m sympathetic that they went after her and not the NAACP.”
Breitbart said Wednesday that he received a tip about the tapes back in April, but did not publish them until the NAACP accused the Tea Party movement last week of having “racist elements” that are a “threat to democracy.” Breitbart said the audience reaction when Sherrod referenced her decision to not help the white farmer offers concrete evidence that the NAACP itself harbors racist elements.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38344940/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

*cough* Bull sh:rule10t *cough* So apparently the entire big government artical and charges of NAACP racism have nothing to do with Sherrod or actual statements from NAACP employees but was about the few chuckles heard when she was telling her story. :rolleyes:

[Accidental Martyr]

Breitbart: "It's all a misunderstanding..."




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38344940/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

*cough* Bull sh:rule10t *cough* So apparently the entire big government artical and charges of NAACP racism have nothing to do with Sherrod or actual statements from NAACP employees but was about the few chuckles heard when she was telling her story. :rolleyes:

Wow, the absurdity and dishonesty of his statement boggles the mind.

[ANTPogo]

Breitbart: "It's all a misunderstanding..."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38344940/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001

*cough* Bull sh:rule10t *cough* So apparently the entire big government artical and charges of NAACP racism have nothing to do with Sherrod or actual statements from NAACP employees but was about the few chuckles heard when she was telling her story. :rolleyes:

Yeah. I noticed that too. His words now are mysteriously at odds with his own words posted by himself on his own website (http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/07/19/video-proof-the-naacp-awards-racism2010/) when he first "broke" the story of the video, where he said things like:

"In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient "

and

"We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.

In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.

Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. "

Yeah, he totally never painted Sherrod as a racist! It was all other people that did that!

And even his backpedaling is wrong, as the full video shows that the NAACP audience present is listening to and approving of a story told by a woman about how she got beyond her own racial prejudices, not a story about how a black woman acted racist against whites in her official duties.

I can't even find a facepalm image facepalmy enough for this blatant dishonesty and hypocrisy.

[Lurker]

Just to clear up Breitbart's claims that Sherrod was not the target and the NAACP was:

In his initial post on July 19, Breitbart claimed that the video is "evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee" and that Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer in her "federal duties" as the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development.

The video itself also included text that said. "Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing over a billion dollars she discriminates against people due to their race."

Breitbart then posted a tweet asking, "Will Eric Holder's DOJ hold accountable fed appointee Shirley Sherrod for admitting practicing racial discrimination?"

After the USDA forced Sherrod out of her position in response to the deceptive video, Big Government celebrated with a post titled: "Racist Govt Official/NAACP Award Recipient Resigns after Big Government Expose."

I think that says it all.

[ANTPogo]

Just to clear up Breitbart's claims that Sherrod was not the target and the NAACP was:

In his initial post on July 19, Breitbart claimed that the video is "evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee" and that Sherrod discriminated against a white farmer in her "federal duties" as the USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development.

The video itself also included text that said. "Ms. Sherrod admits that in her federally appointed position, overseeing over a billion dollars she discriminates against people due to their race."

Breitbart then posted a tweet asking, "Will Eric Holder's DOJ hold accountable fed appointee Shirley Sherrod for admitting practicing racial discrimination?"

After the USDA forced Sherrod out of her position in response to the deceptive video, Big Government celebrated with a post titled: "Racist Govt Official/NAACP Award Recipient Resigns after Big Government Expose."

I think that says it all.

That's okay, though, because Breitbart has totally learned his lesson about trusting videos he sees - he's now questioning whether the footage of the farmer and his wife shown on CNN (where they talk about how much they like and respect Sherrod after Sherrod helped save their family farm) really and truly shows that farmer and his wife after all (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/21/breitbart-farmers-wife-hoax/).

[Juniversal]

Never since the invention of the bike have I seen such impressive back peddaling. ;)

[Lurker]

That's okay, though, because Breitbart has totally learned his lesson about trusting videos he sees - he's now questioning whether the footage of the farmer and his wife shown on CNN (where they talk about how much they like and respect Sherrod after Sherrod helped save their family farm) really and truly shows that farmer and his wife after all (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/21/breitbart-farmers-wife-hoax/).

Boggle!

I especially like this quote of Breitbart's:

You’re going off of her [the farmer's wife] word that the farmer’s wife is the farmer’s wife?

[Juniversal]

It's a conspiracy. :tinfoil

[Juniversal]

Vilsack to apologize to ousted USDA worker.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_usda_racism_resignation_vilsackGlad to see them admit their rush to judgement but it's rediculous they didn't review the circumstances more thoroughly.

[ANTPogo]

Glad to see them admit their rush to judgement but it's rediculous they didn't review the circumstances more thoroughly.

Yeah, I'm really really not happy with the Obama Administration's handling of this whole thing.

[NotJesus]

You’re going off of her [the farmer's wife] word that the farmer’s wife is the farmer’s wife?

If you watch the unedited video, there's a segment where she cuts the tails off some visually impaired mice.

[Lurker]

Yeah, I'm really really not happy with the Obama Administration's handling of this whole thing.


Agreed. But I can understand their actions to a certain degree. Let's assume the story had been shown to be true (or some shade of true like the Acorn story). Every day that Sherrod was allowed to remain in her position the right and FoxNews would be angrily bleating how Obama was tolerating a racist in his administration. It would have reached epic noise levels.

Now, if Obama had said that he wanted to get both sides of the story, which takes time to collect the evidence, I think that would get lost in the uproar. The right certainly did not want to wait to get both sides of the ACORN story or wait for the investigation.

Unfortunately, the initial charges are what people remember, not any results of the investigation.

All that being said, you can't kowtow to this sort of blasphemous journalism, even if it hurts you politically to stand up against it. It just makes people like Beck (Van Jones) and Breitbart (Sherrod, Acorn) feel more empowered when they see the President of the United States reacting to them and they will just get more wild in their accusations and methods.

[Grizzly Bear]

I see where the validity of that poll was questioned, but I don't see where it was outright refuted.

And it also wasn't the only poll to come to a similar conclusion (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html?_r=1):

Questions such as those addressed in both the WISER and the NYtimes polls do more to measure political ideology -- one of the core Tea Party values being self-sufficiency and responsibility -- than they do to establish any kind of "racial resentment".

Parker, the lead researcher in the WISER poll tried to create a control for ideology by comparing examples of "conservative" Republican Tea Party supporters with "conservative" Republican Tea Party critics. Yet in doing so he assumes that conservative means the same thing for everyone, removing ideological differences. In the WISER case other problems that you run into include the small sample size, and extreme limitation of samples to several states. And to top it off both the NYtimes and WISER's failure to disentangle ideology from racial attitudes is more than enough justification to render the polls indecisive if not to question their validity all together with respect to labeling the tea party racist.

And then of course there's all the racists who show up at their rallies. But of course we're not allowed to count them. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't characterize it that way. There's gross immaturity on both sides of the aisle, and the excuse that he/she does it too is absolutely no excuse. There are parts of the grown up party and the ugly party in every movement Michael Gerson (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062903841.html) and this one is no exception. The adults should impose discipline, and they already been doing so. I'm merely pointing out that there is a catastrophic failure in establishing that the racist leans go beyond the scope of the occasional, total idiot that reveals him of herself from time to time and actually made the core tea party ideology one of such reproach.

Now, you may not accept any of this an indicative of racism, and may even suspect it's being trumped up to paint the Tea Party as racist. But to compare that to the blatantly dishonest smear campaign currently being waged against the NAACP is a tad disingenuous.

If you want any comparison from me, it would be that at the moment, the sheer animosity toward the tea party is IMO more like the to the liberal equivalent of Obama birtherism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories). That's on a whole other scale than the black panther/ NAACP/ Breitbart/Williams case.

To be fair, the whole thing with Sherrod from what I've heard may go back to some settlement she had and some excuse breitbart was looking for to give her the boot. Either way, I think its more here that the NAACP overreacted before having all of the facts and unintentionally helped him do his dirtywork. With the damage done already, even with her reinstatement it's unlikely the truth of things will be heard enough.

[The Charnel Expanse]

the sheer animosity toward the tea party is IMO more like the to the liberal equivalent of Obama birtherism.
So the belief that there are racist elements in the Tea Party is the same as believing, despite a glut of evidence to the contrary, that the President of the United States was not a natural-born citizen?

That's a tough one to swallow.

[dudalb]

Yeah, I'm really really not happy with the Obama Administration's handling of this whole thing.

Incredible. Both the Fox News/Tea Party crowd AND The Obama Adminsitration come out looking bad over this.
I have been a semi defender of Fox News, since IMHO up until now Fox is no worse in lying and distortion then many new sources with a Left Slant (I am looking at you, Michael Moore and MSNBC). But this time Fox has really, really, blown in.
And for Obama, Vilsack should be outta there over this.

[Juniversal]

Agreed. But I can understand their actions to a certain degree. Let's assume the story had been shown to be true (or some shade of true like the Acorn story). Every day that Sherrod was allowed to remain in her position the right and FoxNews would be angrily bleating how Obama was tolerating a racist in his administration. It would have reached epic noise levels.

Now, if Obama had said that he wanted to get both sides of the story, which takes time to collect the evidence, I think that would get lost in the uproar. The right certainly did not want to wait to get both sides of the ACORN story or wait for the investigation.

Unfortunately, the initial charges are what people remember, not any results of the investigation.

All that being said, you can't kowtow to this sort of blasphemous journalism, even if it hurts you politically to stand up against it. It just makes people like Beck (Van Jones) and Breitbart (Sherrod, Acorn) feel more empowered when they see the President of the United States reacting to them and they will just get more wild in their accusations and methods.Pretty much my thoughts as well. I feel it was done so abruptly in part to save face over the manufactured Black Panther controvery. Regardless I agree that's not much of an excuse as to why they didn't investigate the matter thorougly. When I first saw the clip I was immediately suspicious over the length of the video. Apparently whoever made the decision to force her to resign didn't do so much as watch the video or even ask her side of the story. :boggled: Seems they were more concerned with looking "fair" and zero tolerance then being reasonable.

[johnny karate]

So the belief that there are racist elements in the Tea Party is the same as believing, despite a glut of evidence to the contrary, that the President of the United States was not a natural-born citizen?

That's a tough one to swallow.

Exactly. It doesn't take a conspiracy theroist to find evidence of racism in the Tea Party.

I don't think asking if the Tea Party has racist elements is even the right question anymore.

Clearly it does.

The only question remaining is to what degree, if any, racism fuels the Tea Party; a question that can probably never be definitively answered.

[BeAChooser]

...Aannd the NAACP is nice enough to release the full video:

E9NcCa_KjXk

The relevant party begins at 16:30. The part that got cut out is that, after the lawyer decided to rip off the white family, she steps in to help them save their farm.

After watching the full tape of her speech, I completely agree that the videotape excerpt released by Breitbart was out of context and incomplete, and that she was indeed relating a story about racial conciliation by her and it was actually a plea for more racial reconciliation. A plea to a black audience for that … which I think is the sort of speech badly needed. I don't agree with everything she said in her speech, but she definitely deserves not to lose her job over this and should be reinstated immediately with an apology from Breitbart, her USDA boss, the Whitehouse (because the buck stops there) and the NAACP. I don't think that anyone who reported what was known as it came out need apologize, however. Just acknowledge what can now be ascertained from the full tape. And that I've now done.

[johnny karate]

BAC, for that post I offer you a heartfelt and completely sincere: :D

[quarky]

What's the difference between a redneck and a good ol' boy?

(I'd tell you, but I just got a minor scolding for being a bit ribald in another post.)

Anyway, the answer has to do with Afro-Americans and sex.

[Mumbles]

After watching the full tape of her speech, I completely agree that the videotape excerpt released by Breitbart was out of context and incomplete, and that she was indeed relating a story about racial conciliation by her and it was actually a plea for more racial reconciliation. A plea to a black audience for that … which I think is the sort of speech badly needed. I don't agree with everything she said in her speech, but she definitely deserves not to lose her job over this and should be reinstated immediately with an apology from Breitbart, her USDA boss, the Whitehouse (because the buck stops there) and the NAACP. I don't think that anyone who reported what was known as it came out need apologize, however. Just acknowledge what can now be ascertained from the full tape. And that I've now done.

I don't agree that Sherrod's message is "needed in black communities." And I do think that many reporters need to apologize.

But, I do think that larger point it right. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. Thank you for this.

[eeyore1954]

and your opinion of Breitbart who clearly was deceptive when he started this whole mess is....?
I personally don't have any opinion of Breitbart but why are you so sure he was "clearly deceptive" I would think it is just as likely someone sent him the edited video and it showed what he wanted to here so he went with it. He could be "duped " just as easily as the USDA and the NAACP were. Do you think he edited the tape?


Her bosses at the USDA are the one I really see as at fault here. Forcing her to resign so quickly without giving her a chance to defend herself. In general you should be slow and sure was letting someone go for a reason like that. Definately lawsuit material.

[BenBurch]

...

And for Obama, Vilsack should be outta there over this.

Agreed. Give HER the job. She can't do worse!

[Juniversal]

I personally don't have any opinion of Breitbart but why are you so sure he was "clearly deceptive" I would think it is just as likely someone sent him the edited video and it showed what he wanted to here so he went with it. He could be "duped " just as easily as the USDA and the NAACP were. Do you think he edited the tape?If Breibart indeed recieved the clip months ago truncated as it was I think it says a lot about his reasoning ability if he didn't find the short length of the clip odd or desire to hear the full story for sake of context.

Not to mention he clearly painted her as a racist initially (as ANTpogo and Lurker pointed out in post #256 and #257) and now claims his intention was never to paint her as a racist or make her look bad which could be seen as a blatant lie since that's clearly not the case.

Her bosses at the USDA are the one I really see as at fault here. Forcing her to resign so quickly without giving her a chance to defend herself. In general you should be slow and sure was letting someone go for a reason like that. Definately lawsuit material.It sounds like Tom Vilsack is at fault here and responsible for the firing and has offered her a new position at the USDA:

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told reporters this afternoon that he has offered a "personal and profound" apology to Shirley Sherrod for forcing her to resign as a result of an out-of-context video posted to a conservative website.


"I asked for Shirley's forgiveness, and she was gracious enough to extend it to me," Vilsack said, accepting "full responsibility" for forcing her to step down.

Vilsack said he offered Sherrod, who had been Georgia State Director of Rural Development, a new position at the USDA, though he declined to specify the nature of that "unique" position. Sherrod indicated to him that she wants time to consider his offer.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011263-503544.html

[Juniversal]

After watching the full tape of her speech, I completely agree that the videotape excerpt released by Breitbart was out of context and incomplete, and that she was indeed relating a story about racial conciliation by her and it was actually a plea for more racial reconciliation. A plea to a black audience for that … which I think is the sort of speech badly needed. I don't agree with everything she said in her speech, but she definitely deserves not to lose her job over this and should be reinstated immediately with an apology from Breitbart, her USDA boss, the Whitehouse (because the buck stops there) and the NAACP. I don't think that anyone who reported what was known as it came out need apologize, however. Just acknowledge what can now be ascertained from the full tape. And that I've now done.Much respect to you Mr. Chooser. ;)

[johnny karate]

Vilsack made a mistake. He then assumed responsibility fro that mistake, and apologized to Sherrod. End of story.

So where's Breitbart's apology?

[ANTPogo]

After watching the full tape of her speech, I completely agree that the videotape excerpt released by Breitbart was out of context and incomplete, and that she was indeed relating a story about racial conciliation by her and it was actually a plea for more racial reconciliation. A plea to a black audience for that … which I think is the sort of speech badly needed. I don't agree with everything she said in her speech, but she definitely deserves not to lose her job over this and should be reinstated immediately with an apology from Breitbart, her USDA boss, the Whitehouse (because the buck stops there) and the NAACP. I don't think that anyone who reported what was known as it came out need apologize, however. Just acknowledge what can now be ascertained from the full tape. And that I've now done.

I also wanted to thank BAC for posting the above.

[Mumbles]

I personally don't have any opinion of Breitbart but why are you so sure he was "clearly deceptive" I would think it is just as likely someone sent him the edited video and it showed what he wanted to here so he went with it. He could be "duped " just as easily as the USDA and the NAACP were. Do you think he edited the tape?

I'd just like to say that I think Breitbart edited the tape. Naturally, I have no proof, but he's still pushing that it proves the NAACP full of anti-white racists because they applaud Sherrod not giving full efforts to help the white farmer (they don't), and this isn't the first time that he's used clumsily edited or falsely titled film to gin up a racial controversy (see: ACORN, New Black Panthers).

[BenBurch]

I'd just like to say that I think Breitbart edited the tape. Naturally, I have no proof, but he's still pushing that it proves the NAACP full of anti-white racists because they applaud Sherrod not giving full efforts to help the white farmer (they don't), and this isn't the first time that he's used clumsily edited or falsely titled film to gin up a racial controversy (see: ACORN, New Black Panthers).

He did a very similar thing before, you know... I think he's a liar, a fraud, and about as smarmy a racist as I have encountered.

[eeyore1954]

Vilsack made a mistake. He then assumed responsibility fro that mistake, and apologized to Sherrod. End of story.

So where's Breitbart's apology?

Breitbart should apologize because most likely he put the video out without wondering about the complete context.

Someone in Vilsack's level of authority should have enough experience to know not to react that quickly in the manner he did.

Breitbart is a guy who makes his living by driving traffic to his websites with "sensational" stories.

[Lurker]

Breitbart is a guy who makes his living by driving traffic to his websites with "sensational" stories.

And perhaps we should no longer be giving a "pass" to people like Breitbart and Drudge who masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than marketing whores willing to put anything in print if it drives their web traffic up.

[johnny karate]

Breitbart should apologize because most likely he put the video out without wondering about the complete context.

Someone in Vilsack's level of authority should have enough experience to know not to react that quickly in the manner he did.

Breitbart is a guy who makes his living by driving traffic to his websites with "sensational" stories.

He's also supposedly an adult with moral and ethical principles.

No one's giving Vilsack a pass. Including Vilsack himself. But there sure seems to be a lot of shoulder-shrugging when it comes to assigning culpability to the guy who started the whole mess.

[BeAChooser]

And perhaps we should no longer be giving a "pass" to people like Breitbart and Drudge who masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than marketing whores willing to put anything in print if it drives their web traffic up.

I want to caution the liberals on this thread, in the leftstream media, in the democratic party and in the black community to be careful about casting too many stones over this case.

Doing so puts you in the position of being exposed as hypocrites.

That's because there is little difference between this case and the case where the tea party (and specific tea party members) were castigated as racists based solely on unsubstantiated allegations made by some black congressmen who clearly tried to provoke an incident by walking through protestors during the Health Care debate.

In that case, within minutes of that walk, the congressmen were being filmed talking about the alleged racism of the protestors, their staff members were twittering the claim to liberal bloggers, and those bloggers then began to immediatedly attack the tea party on the internet as racists. Then very quickly the leftist mainstream media (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) picked up on that and made that the #1 issue on their airways. And then that was picked up by liberal members of this forum (many of whom are on this thread and now acting self-righteous about Breitbart and Fox News), who quickly started threads attacking the teaparty as racist. And all of those accusations were based on very sketchy information and very unreliable sources, at best.

Need I remind you that all of that was based on an accusation that was totally unsubstantiated and still is unsubstantiated in any way. Not one of the many video cameras that were in the crowd (and even in use by the congressmen's staff as they traversed of the crowd) captured ANY racist comment, whatsoever. And note that despite requests they do so, the congressmen never released any portion of the video their aids shot of that walk. What was on their tapes?

Nor did a single witness in the crowd, the police or among the journalists who were there (most of whom would jump at the chance to prove the tea party is racist) come forward to corroborate the claims made by the congressmen. Not one. Even a congressman who was in the group and standing right next to those who made the accusations said he didn't hear any slurs (despite the claim that the N-word was reportedly "shouted" 15 times at them). No witnesses came forward, despite the fact that Breitbart offered to donate a $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if anyone provided proof of the allegations. In fact, Breitbart even offered to donate money to the UNCF if John Lewis, one of the prime accusing congressmen, would just take and pass a lie detector test about the incident. He refused. (And remember, Lewis was the same congressman who a few years ago compared Republicans to Nazis. Who said McCain and Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" during the Presidential campaign and then linked them with George Wallace, clearly race-baiting).

Nor was the allegation of deliberate spitting on one Congressman proven. The video clearly showed that if any drops of spittle landed on the congressman, it was nothing more than an accident due to the fact the congressman walked too close to a man in the crowd who was shouting about health care at the time (and when people shout they sometimes spray). The man did not hork up something and deliberately spit it, as the allegation was intended to make people visualize.

Furthermore, the congressmen making the allegations have a sorted history themselves. Some have been caught lying in past events. Some were caught lying during this case. For example, congressman Cleaver clearly lied when he later claimed he'd not "talked about the incident on TV or anywhere" or "report anything, never a single thing in Washington, not one thing". His office made a press release with the accusations the day of the incident. And that press release itself contained lies (it said, for example, "the man who spat on the Congressman was arrested" when the Capital Police have stated *no one* was arrested that day).

And some of these congressmen were known to be racebaiters. I already noted an example from congressman Lewis' past. Congressman Clyburn called Joe Wilson a racist for opposing ObamaCare and even accused Hillary Clinton of being a racist during the Presidential primary. Even leftist media, like the Huffington Post, acknowledged he was a racebaiter saying Clyburn was "happy to play his by now familiar part". And does ANYONE on this thread really believe the congressmen when when they claim they had no plan to instigate a reaction in the crowd that day … that it was just the first day of spring and they felt like taking a walk in the sun? Can't we at least be honest about the facts and with ourselves?

And despite all that, there has been absolutely no apology to the tea party or those specific individuals in the crowd who were singled out as racists over this. By anyone on the other side of this case. So beware of casting too many stones. It might backfire. And remember that this isn't the only countervailing example of hypocricy from your side of this debate that I could mention and discuss in detail. My suggestion is do what I did … acknowledge the facts and move on.

[Alferd_Packer]

That's because there is little difference between this case and the case where the tea party (and specific tea party members) were castigated as racists based solely on unsubstantiated allegations made by some black congressmen who clearly tried to provoke an incident by walking through protestors during the Health Care debate.



There are many other examples of racism at tea party events.

What about the Mark Williams letter? was that not racist?

[BeAChooser]

There are many other examples of racism at tea party events.

Seriously, folks, you and the rest of the democrat world need to stop leveling charges of racism at the drop of a hat in lieu of arguing the facts about the specific issues raised by organizations and individuals. What you've gotten in this instance, I think, is just a taste of your own medicine (and, who knows, that might have been Breitbart's intent all along).

In any case, you need to acknowledge that a few members of a large group being racist does not invalidate the group's message, as long as the group makes an honest attempt to rid itself of such people when they become known to it. And the Tea Party has from the very beginning.

You need to stop trying to discredit organizations like the Tea Party and the Arizona illegal-immigration movement with accusations of racism, when the vast majority of their members are just as non-racially motivated as you and I, and are raising quite valid and totally non-race related concerns about an issue. Or you may get another taste of your own medicine.

Your side is NOW busy pouncing on Breitbart, Hannity and such for “smearing” Sherrod with out-of-context remarks. But is that really true? Is that really fair?

Has Hannity really done more than what the MSM on the left has done in the case of the Tea Party and Arizona issue (or other issues I could name)? I don't think so. In fact, I would note that Hannity didn't even show the videoclip in question until after the Whitehouse had already fired Sherrod.

And most of Breitbart's message, when he released the video and in later articles, was not about concerns she was racist, but concerns that the NAACP shows signs of being racist organization itself (he pointed out, for example, the NAACP audience's *laughingly* curious reaction when Sherrod talked about sending the farmer to work with "his own kind" and about republicans being against health care because of Obama's race). But he mostly focused on his concern regarding Sherrod''s statement that she decided that she should engage not in racism, but in what can only be described as "class warfare". And did Breitbart really edit or remove any portion of Sherrod's remarks that show the larger context? You don't know this at this point. He may have only received those small clips. In any case, note that Breitbart's first article clearly indicated that Sherrod's "basic humanity" had caused her to finally help the farmer. He made no effort to withhold that fact as he would have if he were really only intent on trying to "smear" her.

Now as I said earlier, Sherrod said many things that I don't agree with. Her message of racial concilliation is fine, but is her message of class warfare really ok? Really something that will be good for America? She discusses getting 100% loans from the USDA to buy houses near the end of her speech. Isn't doing that part of what got us into the current financial mess? And what business does the USDA have buying houses for people anyway? And then she says the great thing about government is that nobody get's fired. Is it? Really? These are the issues that you should be now discussing. Not trying to now smear Breitbart and the Tea Party.

Afterall, if push comes to shove we could also be discussing Katie Couric's dishonest editing of her 9 hours of Palin interview tapes? Or how quickly Obama jumped to support claims of racism in the white cop, black professor, beer summit case? Or we could discuss the double standard of whether a white federal employee would be treated the same now after having made comments similar to Sherrod's to an all white audience? Or we can discuss Sherrod telling her NAACP audience that Republicans are against President Obama because his is black (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa4t4WLuRyI&feature=player_embedded#! )? I don't know about you, but that sounds like racebaiting (and note this statement came immediately after she'd said this wasn't about race but money). So let's get back to discussing real issues, folks, instead of bogus charges of racism from one side or the other. OK?

[Lurker]

I want to caution the liberals on this thread, in the leftstream media, in the democratic party and in the black community to be careful about casting too many stones over this case.

Doing so puts you in the position of being exposed as hypocrites.

That's because there is little difference between this case and the case where the tea party (and specific tea party members) were castigated as racists based solely on unsubstantiated allegations made by some black congressmen who clearly tried to provoke an incident by walking through protestors during the Health Care debate.

Let's not forget the racist signs at Tea Party events. The one with Obama as witch doctor is a bit troublesome to explain away as innocent fun, no? I personally think the majority of Tea Partiers are not racist, although there is a minority that is. I am glad to see the Tea Partiers are starting to address them.

Anyway, the point is that there were allegations of racism in the Tea Parties before the event you described took place that had been documented and the Tea Party had not denounced them. So there was a reason to believe the spitting and so on.

Furthermore, the congressmen making the allegations have a sorted history themselves. Some have been caught lying in past events. Some were caught lying during this case. For example, congressman Cleaver clearly lied when he later claimed he'd not "talked about the incident on TV or anywhere" or "report anything, never a single thing in Washington, not one thing". His office made a press release with the accusations the day of the incident. And that press release itself contained lies (it said, for example, "the man who spat on the Congressman was arrested" when the Capital Police have stated *no one* was arrested that day).
I am not sure what a "sorted history" is but I don't think your example above is lying. He probably thought the man was arrested but the Capital Police let him go instead.

[BeAChooser]

What about the Mark Williams letter? was that not racist?

Just because a person uses the word "colored" in a clear act of ridicule and parady at overblown NAACP charges of racism, doesn't necessarily make that person a racist. Ill-advised perhaps. Frustrated and angry perhaps. But not necessarily racist. Maybe some of us are just sick and tired of hearing the left throw out the word "racist" expecting us to cower. Maybe the left is aghast that more and more people aren't cowering any more, but starting to fight back with words and in this case a bit of parody.

I actually have no idea if Williams is racist but regardless, the Tea Party has now kicked him out. He's history and some will say the Tea Party did the right thing. Or perhaps they simply overreacted like Obama and the USDA did with Sherrod. I don't know. In any case, be satisfied and move on. The fact is the Tea Party is making an effort to keep racism out of their party. Note that in an earlier thread where the Tea Party was attacked by posters like Lurker over the bogus Black Causus accusations I noted above, someone posted a video of a guy at a Tea Party with a clearly racist sign and said that was evidence that the party is racist. Why was it necessary that people like myself (and not people like you) point out to that poster that the video actually showed multiple black and white members of the Tea Party confronting the guy and suggesting that he leave. It showed just the opposite of racist behavior. There are plenty of false accusations being made, and it needs to stop. Or this will end badly for all of us. This country has much bigger problems than whether this Neanderthal or that Neanderthal is a racist.

What you need to remember is that Williams and any like him only represent a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of an organization that is so loosely organized and so relatively new at this point that it would be next to impossible not to have racist people in the membership, even in leadership. Just as the NAACP clearly still has people who harbor racist attitudes as members and perhaps even leaders. And it is much, much, much older.

This casting of stones, charging racism at the drop of a hat, and blowing every little comment made by anyone out of proportion needs to stop … before it really does cause racist attitudes and behaviors to reappear in this country in a big way. Is that really what you folks want? Because I suppose it would be good for the democrat party.

[quarky]

I'm trying to figure out a way to finish the joke; p.c. style; no infractions.

Well, it just can't be done.

Unless I resort to South-Park style wordiness:

Rednecks and good ol boys both hate naggers...

But a good ol' boy will (Have sex with one).

Damn.

Its a crying shame that I'm censored here. For real, my friends, I am utterly without prejudice and hatefulness. I couldn't even bring myself to kill the gooks that (evidently) so threatened our freedoms.

Does "gook" meet the censor system here?

Well, I chose not to kill them. And it made me a federal fugitive for 5 years.

So, forgive me for my use of the term "naggers".

I hope this doesn't come off as nagging.

I really wish i was allowed to cut loose here; on this forum.
You wouldn't believe the stories I have; and if I told them, straight up, you'd think I was disrespectful of the very black-ass friends that would lay down their lives for me, as I would them.

Pity the auto censor **** can't tell the difference between me and be a chooser; whatever.

It really sucks the guts out of my best stuff. I want to share. I have no hate in my heart.

[GrouchoMarxist]

What's the difference between a redneck and a good ol' boy?
(I'd tell you, but I just got a minor scolding for being a bit ribald in another post.)

Anyway, the answer has to do with Afro-Americans and sex.


I'm trying to figure out a way to finish the joke; p.c. style; no infractions.




The Purple light bulbs in the bath tub.

[quarky]

The Purple light bulbs in the bath tub.

Thanks.

I do need grounding sometimes.

[Lurker]

What you need to remember is that Williams and any like him only represent a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of an organization that is so loosely organized and so relatively new at this point that it would be next to impossible not to have racist people in the membership, even in leadership.

We agree! Hallelujah! AS I have said many times, nothing wrong with what the NAACP said about the Tea Parties. They said it attracted racist elements. OK. That is true. From what I have seen, it is a minority and we should instead be focused on what the Tea Party is saying instead of this kerfluffle. Personally, I think there is plenty of amusing stuff in what they are saying ("keep your government hands off my social security").

[Wolrab]

("keep your government hands off my social security").

The social security that a good number of these people contributed to for their entire working lives?

[BeAChooser]

AS I have said many times, nothing wrong with what the NAACP said about the Tea Parties. They said it attracted racist elements.

Do you honestly think the NAACP doesn't attract racist elements? It's very name suggests that it might attract them. And I think a videoclip that shows its black members recently laughing at a story of reverse racism might support that concern. Can you point to any case where the NAACP has expelled bigots and racists from it's own ranks as it demanded the Tea Party do? Like the Tea Party has done on more than one occasion? I doubt you can. Yet we both know full well that there are racists and bigots in the NAACP ranks. And amongst it's leadership.

Furthermore, contrary to what you claim, the NAACP claimed more than just that the Tea Party attracts racists. Their announcement stated the Tea Party needed to "repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, not just the racism of a very small number of it's members. "Inherent" in that language is the assumption that the Tea Party is racist. In their resolution, they also accused the Tea Party of racism based on the unproven racebaiting accusations made by those black caucus congressmen I mentioned earlier. In doing so, they are guilty of promoting reverse racism. Using false accusations of racism is reverse racism. Plain and simple.

And you should realize that videotaped evidence of it's members laughing at reverse racism during the telling of Sherrod's story isn't the only instance one could point to involving the NAACP that suggests it might "tolerate" reverse racism of the sort that Sherrod was talking about in it's ranks. In fact, if you looked at Sherrod's complete video, you see Sherrod making a plea, not to the Tea Party, but to NAACP members to not do what she did years ago, but to work for racial conciliation instead. Why did she do that? Presumably she made this plea because she thought the attitude of reverse racism might be found amongst people in her audience (all members of NAACP) . Else why say it?

Let me point out one more thing. The NAACP is a black only organization. The Tea Party clearly is not. As I showed earlier in this thread, it has a significant number of black members. Now on the face of it, which organization is more attractive to people who focus on race (i.e., potential racists)? An organization which does not accept white members, whose name mentions one race, and whose agenda is clearly about advancing that one specific race? Or an organization which has both white and black (and brown, and red, and yellow, etc) members, whose name doesn't mention race, and whose agenda says nothing about race? Which is more attractive to racists? An organization (like the Tea Party) which makes it known that racists are not welcom and whose members are vocal about confronting such people when encountered at their rallies and events? Or an organization that does neither?

Look at the case of Kennety Gladney. He is a black man who was viciously beaten and called the N-word by SEIU thugs at a Tea Party last August. He asked the NAACP for help. And instead, the NAACP called him an Uncle Tom and took the side of the SEIU thugs. Here, you can watch them do that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-F2khQudUo&feature=player_embedded . I think that incident and the response of the NAACP to it says volumes about the NAACP. It proves it is now a partisan, liberal/socialist/communist political organization and not much else.

[ANTPogo]

Personally, I think there is plenty of amusing stuff in what they are saying ("keep your government hands off my social security").

This one was always one of my favorites:

http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/medicare.jpg

[KingMerv00]

Seriously, folks, you and the rest of the democrat world need to stop leveling charges of racism at the drop of a hat in lieu of arguing the facts about the specific issues raised by organizations and individuals.

So you thought it is wrong to attribute negative characteristics to a large group of people due to the actions of a minority and then attributed negative characteristics to a large group of people due to the actions of a minority.

[johnny karate]

The problem with Liberals is their tendency to over-generalize.

[NotJesus]

The problem with Liberals is their tendency to over-generalize.

Could you be less specific?

[Mumbles]

So you thought it is wrong to attribute negative characteristics to a large group of people due to the actions of a minority and then attributed negative characteristics to a large group of people due to the actions of a minority.

Well, except that the video clearly shows nobody laughing when Sherrod when she discusses the way she initially treats the farmer. So it's also refusing to call Williams a racist despite his repeated racist behavior, and then making thingsup in order to portray the NAACP as racist.

[Juniversal]

Do you honestly think the NAACP doesn't attract racist elements? It's very name suggests that it might attract them. And I think a videoclip that shows its black members recently laughing at a story of reverse racism might support that concern.Is the NAACP a "movement" as the Tea Party claims to be? Or is it an organization? And what in the hell is reverse racism? :confused: Racism is racism. And it seems "some of the NAACP members chuckled while she was telling her story" is the last thing conservatives have to cling on to in a weak attempt to make the story seem to have SOME validity to it. Very weak.

Furthermore, contrary to what you claim, the NAACP claimed more than just that the Tea Party attracts racists. Their announcement stated the Tea Party needed to "repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, not just the racism of a very small number of it's members. "Inherent" in that language is the assumption that the Tea Party is racist. In their resolution, they also accused the Tea Party of racism based on the unproven racebaiting accusations made by those black caucus congressmen I mentioned earlier. In doing so, they are guilty of promoting reverse racism. Using false accusations of racism is reverse racism. Plain and simple. Again what is this "reverse racism" you speak of? Racism is racism. And if you want to interpret their statement as implying the entire movement is racist then so be it but the statement definately didn't explicity indict the entire tea party as racist.

And you should realize that videotaped evidence of it's members laughing at reverse racism during the telling of Sherrod's story isn't the only instance one could point to involving the NAACP that suggests it might "tolerate" reverse racism of the sort that Sherrod was talking about in it's ranks. In fact, if you looked at Sherrod's complete video, you see Sherrod making a plea, not to the Tea Party, but to NAACP members to not do what she did years ago, but to work for racial conciliation instead. Why did she do that? Presumably she made this plea because she thought the attitude of reverse racism might be found amongst people in her audience (all members of NAACP) . Else why say it?Reverse racism again? Really? :rolleyes: And you seem intent on pushing this idea that the one time the audience members chuckled during her story some how is proof they aprove of her behavior. It's NOT. I would've laughed too though I don't approve of her initial behavior. Am I now racist? Did you miss the part when the audience approved of her change of heart?

And her speech was clearly not a "plea" but simply a motivational tale of reconciliation.

[BeAChooser]

except that the video clearly shows nobody laughing when Sherrod when she discusses the way she initially treats the farmer. So it's also refusing to call Williams a racist despite his repeated racist behavior, and then making thingsup in order to portray the NAACP as racist.

"I was trying to decide how much help I was going to give him." Ha Ha Ha goes the audience.

I'll grant that's all the laughter you hear, but it's not made up.

And whether Williams is a racist is a matter of interpretation.

Before you act all high and mighty, Mumbles, will you call the NAACP racist for the way they treated Mr Gladney? Did you look at that video?

Are you so blinded by agenda as to not see reverse racism by the NAACP when it is staring you in the face?

Will you acknowledge that the NAACP is wrong to accuse the Tea Party of racism using the totally unsubstantiated claims of a couple racebaiting congressmen who tried to provoke an incident? Isn't supporting their claims just because they are black, inherently racist?

I know you don't want to address the rest of the content of my post (like the question about which organization is more racist), but you best understand that there is a storm blowing through this country and it is headed your way. We conservatives aren't going to simply take being called racist or Uncle Toms anymore. You'd best not expect us to cower. Here we sit, with a BLACK PRESIDENT, and still all we hear from the racebaiters who still run the black community and it's organizations is the message that America is a racist country and anyone who challenges the democrat agenda in any form is a racist. Well I think Dennis Prager has something pertinent to say on this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2010/07/20/naacp_confirms_election_of_a_black_president_made_ no_difference


NAACP Confirms Election of a Black President Made No Difference


Perhaps you should read it.

[dudalb]

And perhaps we should no longer be giving a "pass" to people like Breitbart and Drudge who masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than marketing whores willing to put anything in print if it drives their web traffic up.

Fine, as long as you agree that the Micheal Moore's of the world are no better.

[Juniversal]

Let me point out one more thing. The NAACP is a black only organization. The Tea Party clearly is not. As I showed earlier in this thread, it has a significant number of black members. Now on the face of it, which organization is more attractive to people who focus on race (i.e., potential racists)? An organization which does not accept white members, whose name mentions one race, and whose agenda is clearly about advancing that one specific race? Or an organization which has both white and black (and brown, and red, and yellow, etc) members, whose name doesn't mention race, and whose agenda says nothing about race? Which is more attractive to racists? An organization (like the Tea Party) which makes it known that racists are not welcom and whose members are vocal about confronting such people when encountered at their rallies and events? Or an organization that does neither?I would think you would do your research before you post. The NAACP is NOT a "black only" organization. There are white members of the NAACP. And I certainly wouldn't say the Tea Party has a "significant" number of black members. That's an exaggeration at best. But I wouldn't think an organization created to fight the against the disenfranchisment of blacks would attract many white people. Would you? And there's still huge disparities between whites and blacks that would warrant an organization like the NAACP to remain in existence.

Look at the case of Kennety Gladney. He is a black man who was viciously beaten and called the N-word by SEIU thugs at a Tea Party last August. He asked the NAACP for help. And instead, the NAACP called him an Uncle Tom and took the side of the SEIU thugs. Here, you can watch them do that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-F2khQudUo&feature=player_embedded . I think that incident and the response of the NAACP to it says volumes about the NAACP. It proves it is now a partisan, liberal/socialist/communist political organization and not much else.Liberal/socialist/communist? Really? You forgot facist, anti-american, marxist terrorist, ect. :rolleyes: And yes that guy giving the speech is an idiot. Regardless something doesn't sit right with me about the Gladney attack.

I found this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w&feature=player_embedded) video of the attack (oddly enough from a big government artical) and I see nothing "vicious" or brutal about it. Honestly it looks like the black guy with the dark blue shirt who I assume is a SEIU member (on the ground with at the begining of the video) got the worst of the attack. Kenneth seemed to be moving around just fine at the very end of the video when he was talking to the police. Now unless he was somehow seriously injured at the end of the video when he was surrounded by police and police cars then I can't help but feel Gladney was seriously milking the confrontation. Especially after reading this (http://biggovernment.com/jhoft/2010/04/21/seiu-thugs-plead-not-guilty-in-brutal-beatdown-of-kenneth-gladney/) big government artical that claims "he was too weak to speak after his public beating" as well as being in a wheel chair. But apparently not weak enough to make it to a protest in a wheel chair for a photo op looking pathetic. http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a176/julphotobucket1/shifty1.gif

[johnny karate]

Could you be less specific?

In the spirit of Merv's preceding post, I was attempting to be ironic.

[BeAChooser]

And if you want to interpret their statement as implying the entire movement is racist then so be it but the statement definately didn't explicity indict the entire tea party as racist.

Well does this?

http://wokv.com/localnews/2010/07/jacksonville-naacp-president-s.html


Jacksonville NAACP President Says Tea Party Is Racist

Following suit with the National Association for the Advancement Of Colored People, the local chapter president, Isaiah Rumlin said the Tea Party movement exhibits structured racism.


And you seem intent on pushing this idea that the one time the audience members chuckled during her story some how is proof they aprove of her behavior.

You seem intent on ignoring the NAACP's statements about Gladney. You seem to intent on ignoring their uncritical support of the black caucus congressmen who claimed, without anything whatsoever to substantiate their claim at all and much evidence to the contrary, that they were called the N-word and spit on. You seem intent on ignoring the NAACP's ignoring other blacks (and white democrats) who have made clearly racist remarks in the past. And do you honestly believe there is not a single member of the NAACP who is a racist or who hires a black person over a white person solely on the basis of race? Because that's what they are insisting the Tea Party must have before it should be listened to by anyone.

Mary Frances Berry, the former black chairwoman of The U.S. Commission On Civil Rights, told Politico on July 20, 2010, that ''Tainting the Tea Party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for democrats. There's no evidence the Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other republicans, and indeed many other Americans, but getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help democrats win in November. Having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.'' Is that not what's really going on here, Juniversal?

And her speech was clearly not a "plea" but simply a motivational tale of reconciliation.

At one point she says


I've come to realize that we have to work together … and … you know it's sad that we don't have a room full of white and blacks here tonight, because we have to overcome the divisions that we have. We have to get to the point where as Tully Marsden [?] said ' Race exists but it doesn't matter.' We have to work just as hard. I know that division is still here but our communities are not going to thrive … our children won't have the communities that they need to be stay in, live in and have a good life, if we can't figure this out you all. White people, black people, hispanic people, we all have to do our part to make our communities a safe place, a healthy place, a good environment.

[ANTPogo]

And whether Williams is a racist is a matter of interpretation.

Really? What interpretation do you give it, BAC?

Before you act all high and mighty, Mumbles, will you call the NAACP racist for the way they treated Mr Gladney? Did you look at that video?

I think Juniversal covered that.

Will you acknowledge that the NAACP is wrong to accuse the Tea Party of racism using the totally unsubstantiated claims of a couple racebaiting congressmen who tried to provoke an incident? Isn't supporting their claims just because they are black, inherently racist?

Sure, that would be terrible...if that, in fact, had any relation whatsoever to why the NAACP released the statement they did regarding the Tea Party.

Here's a hint, BAC: you talked about one of the real reasons the NAACP called upon the Tea Party to repudiate the racists who tried to associate themselves with the organization in the post I'm replying to, And there are many other reasons, too, none of which have anything to do with purported attacks on the congressmen.

I know you don't want to address the rest of the content of my post (like the question about which organization is more racist), but you best understand that there is a storm blowing through this country and it is headed your way. We conservatives aren't going to simply take being called racist or Uncle Toms anymore.

You know, if you're going to get indignant about being called a racist, it helps to not do things like write a letter in the voice of former slaves describing how they really don't like being expected to work for a living and describing slavery as "a great gig", or carry things like this (http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn161/garykwf/racist_tea_party.jpg) or this (http://www.alan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tea_robertson_1-215x300.png) at Tea Party rallies.

Just sayin'.

You'd best not expect us to cower. Here we sit, with a BLACK PRESIDENT, and still all we hear from the racebaiters who still run the black community and it's organizations is the message that America is a racist country and anyone who challenges the democrat agenda in any form is a racist.

What possible reason do you have for thinking that the election of a single black president in America magically undoes the decades of pervasive racism that has existed in American society, and as shown by that segment of bigots who are now attempting to latch onto the Tea Parties, still exists to a disturbing degree?

The election of Obama was just one more step along a path towards a colorblind society, not the final step. There's still a long way to go.

[ANTPogo]

"There's no evidence the Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other republicans,"

Wow, talk about your unfortunate implications...

[pipelineaudio]

This one was always one of my favorites:

http://i479.photobucket.com/albums/rr157/antpogo/medicare.jpg

Epic win! Its like that "behead those that call islam violent" sign

[Accidental Martyr]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
"There's no evidence the Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other republicans,"

Wow, talk about your unfortunate implications...

LOL :)

[Juniversal]

Well does this?

http://wokv.com/localnews/2010/07/jacksonville-naacp-president-s.htmlNope.

You seem intent on ignoring the NAACP's statements about Gladney. You seem to intent on ignoring their uncritical support of the black caucus congressmen who claimed, without anything whatsoever to substantiate their claim at all and much evidence to the contrary, that they were called the N-word and spit on.I have no sympathy for Gladney. He's a mediocre actor at best.

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/faking-victimhood-just-how-hurt-was

And yes. As I mentioned the guy giving the NAACP speech is an idiot.

You seem intent on ignoring the NAACP's ignoring other blacks (and white democrats) who have made clearly racist remarks in the past. And do you honestly believe there is not a single member of the NAACP who is a racist or who hires a black person over a white person solely on the basis of race? Because that's what they are insisting the Tea Party must have before it should be listened to by anyone.Let's be honest. Any movement that has the racial diversity of a bag of rice (http://www.jeffhead.com/912teaparty/912-TeaParty-DC-13k.jpg), calls the President an illegal alien (no doubt many tea baggers are birthers), and appears suddenly when the first BLACK president enters office is naturally, going to be percieved as having an agenda relolving around the race of the President. Especially since conservatives don't have the best track record when it comes to issues of race. To many people, modern conservatives (paticularly social conservatives) are seen as an extension of the Conservatives who opposed the Civil Rights movement and opposed minority rights. And for a sizable segment of the constituency, they are.

Intrinsically the parties haven't changed much since the party shuffle that happened in the 1950's and 60's where the more conservative elements of the Democratic party migrated to the Republican party (Strom Thurmond for example) as the Democrats became more liberal and concerned with minority rights. I really can't blame the NAACP for being defensive over the tea party.

And of course I wouldn't say NO NAACP members were racist. But I also couldn't imagine they were paticularly prominent in the organization.

Mary Frances Berry, the former black chairwoman of The U.S. Commission On Civil Rights, told Politico on July 20, 2010, that ''Tainting the Tea Party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for democrats. There's no evidence the Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other republicans, and indeed many other Americans, but getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help democrats win in November. Having one's opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.'' Is that not what's really going on here, Juniversal?



At one point she saysPlease tell the Tea Partiers to start "discussing joblessness" as they seem intent on marginalizing themselves with their empty rhetoric.

[eeyore1954]

And perhaps we should no longer be giving a "pass" to people like Breitbart and Drudge who masquerade as journalists but are nothing more than marketing whores willing to put anything in print if it drives their web traffic up.

I have no reason to believe they are marketing "whores" . Is Adrianna Huffington also nothing more than a one also.

Have they put anything up if it drives traffic. Breitbart put up something that he believes in and probably was willingly duped into believing. If others were so quickly misled by the video why not him.

Although I have never gone to a Brietbart sites. But I am going now, My experience with Drudge is it usually has pretty accurate news articles.

[quarky]

I've received a few scoldings from the mod-squad recently, so I must tone down my language.
Therefore,
I've got nothing to say about this subject.

[Juniversal]

Have they put anything up if it drives traffic. Breitbart put up something that he believes in and probably was willingly duped into believing. If others were so quickly misled by the video why not him.

Although I have never gone to a Brietbart sites. But I am going now, My experience with Drudge is it usually has pretty accurate news articles.Breitbart doesn't even claim he was duped. He never says he was decieved by the short length of the clip into believing Sherrod was a racist. What he does do though is basically lie and claim he never implied Sherrod was a racist (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38344940/ns/us_news-life/?GT1=43001) and it was the media's misinterpretation that gave that impression.

[Mumbles]

I have no reason to believe they are marketing "whores" . Is Adrianna Huffington also nothing more than a one also.

Seriously, have you actually seen Huffington Post? Linked articles from real news sites, lots of woo, and celebrity breasts are their MO.

[Mumbles]

"I was trying to decide how much help I was going to give him." Ha Ha Ha goes the audience.

I'll grant that's all the laughter you hear, but it's not made up.

And it's in response to her turnaround. When she discusses how she initially discriminated against the farmer, nobody laughs.

And whether Williams is a racist is a matter of interpretation.


No it's not.

Before you act all high and mighty, Mumbles, will you call the NAACP racist for the way they treated Mr Gladney? Did you look at that video?

What, the dude that pretended to get beaten badly be the SEIU? Sure. What they should have said was that he was an obvious sham.

Will you acknowledge that the NAACP is wrong to accuse the Tea Party of racism using the totally unsubstantiated claims of a couple racebaiting congressmen who tried to provoke an incident? Isn't supporting their claims just because they are black, inherently racist?

Nope.

And the thing is, If John Lewis walked up and said that he was called the N-Word by anyone, I'd believe it unless I had actual footage showing that he lied. And by actual, I mean not posted by Andrew Breitbart, among other caveats. And that's because John Lewis is a hero, and Andrew Breitbart is a sociopath.

I know you don't want to address the rest of the content of my post (like the question about which organization is more racist), but you best understand that there is a storm blowing through this country and it is headed your way. We conservatives aren't going to simply take being called racist or Uncle Toms anymore. You'd best not expect us to cower.

Also, the gays want to ruin marriage.

From where I sit, the conservative movement, in general, has been at the forefront of anti-black racism for my entire life. They've always been shrill about it. So I'm not at all suprised by this storm - I've been in that hurricane for over thirty years now.

Granted, not every prominent white conservative is a racist. There's Mike Huckabee...uh...there's Mike Huckabee! And I certainly won't accuse every conservative of hating black people. I know a lot of black conservatives, and I know some white conservatives that find racist humor disgusting.

Here we sit, with a BLACK PRESIDENT, and still all we hear from the racebaiters who still run the black community and it's organizations is the message that America is a racist country and anyone who challenges the democrat agenda in any form is a racist.

My view on this is very simple. If republicans (and this is a republican problem, not a conservative one - I said before that I know many black conservatives, but most of them are staunch democrats) don't want to be viewed as racists, they need only stop saying and doing racist things for a while.

Well I think Dennis Prager has something pertinent to say on this:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2010/07/20/naacp_confirms_election_of_a_black_president_made_ no_difference



Perhaps you should read it.

You lost me at "Dennis Prager".

[Lurker]

Do you honestly think the NAACP doesn't attract racist elements? It's very name suggests that it might attract them.

You think the term "colored" is going to attract racists to the NAACP? Anyway, we know they have addressed racism. They condemned the NBP (Ben Jealous), they came out against Sherrod when they thought she was being racist against whites. And that is only in the last couple of weeks. Imgaine what I might find if I looked further? So your claim that they don't condemn reverse racists is false.


And you should realize that videotaped evidence of it's members laughing at reverse racism during the telling of Sherrod's story isn't the only instance one could point to involving the NAACP that suggests it might "tolerate" reverse racism of the sort that Sherrod was talking about in it's ranks. In fact, if you looked at Sherrod's complete video, you see Sherrod making a plea, not to the Tea Party, but to NAACP members to not do what she did years ago, but to work for racial conciliation instead. Why did she do that? Presumably she made this plea because she thought the attitude of reverse racism might be found amongst people in her audience (all members of NAACP) . Else why say it?
Laughing? It seems there are different ways to interpret the sounds. If the NAACP is racist and the audience laughed at Sherrod talking about treating whities poorly, why did they clap and cheer when she came to the thrust of her story about it not being about race but economics? If they were so racist why would they calp as their alleged worldview is demolished by this woman?

They may have chuckled about the FACT that Sherrod saw the white man as trying to act superior and then the audacity of that same man asking for help might elicit some chuckles. That is most likely what they were laughing at, not "sticking it to the whie man". In the context of the speech and its ending it makes more sense. Otherwise the racist NAACP audience would not have cheered so loudly about their worldview being dismissed.


Let me point out one more thing. The NAACP is a black only organization. The Tea Party clearly is not.

It is? Sean Hannity is a member and he does not look black to me.

[Lurker]

"I was trying to decide how much help I was going to give him." Ha Ha Ha goes the audience.

I'll grant that's all the laughter you hear, but it's not made up.

Keep in mind, just before this Sherrod notes how the white man in her office is acting superior and trying to make her feel inferior.

Is it possible that some in the audience might react with a chuckle at the thought of a man pissing off the woman they came to for help and then the woman saying, "I was trying to decide how much help I was going to give him."

You don't find that even remotely funny?

[AlBell]

"There's no evidence the Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other republicans,"

Wow, talk about your unfortunate implications...
Since almost by definition by groups like NAACP, all whites are racist, which voting bloc do you think is being wooed by Tea Partiers? Blacks who will vote R, or whites who voted D in 2008?

Anyway, keep the Tea{pot} tempests blowing; 2010 elections approach.

[Lurker]

Fine, as long as you agree that the Micheal Moore's of the world are no better.
Moore can be deceptive in his movies, I grant that.

[GrouchoMarxist]

You think the term "colored" is going to attract racists to the NAACP? Anyway, we know they have addressed racism. They condemned the NBP (Ben Jealous), they came out against Sherrod when they thought she was being racist against whites. And that is only in the last couple of weeks. Imgaine what I might find if I looked further? So your claim that they don't condemn reverse racists is false.



So they made the accusation of racism before getting the facts?

[ANTPogo]

So they made the accusation of racism before getting the facts?

That's some pretty epic missing the point, there.

[johnny karate]

Anyway, keep the Tea{pot} tempests blowing; 2010 elections approach.

Perhaps you don't follow current events, but it was a conservative (and high-ranking member of the Tea Party) who outed himself as a racist, and another conservative (and prominent media figure) who manufactured a racism scandal to serve as a smokescreen. So you might want to check from which direction those winds are blowing, because it's not the left.

[GrouchoMarxist]

That's some pretty epic missing the point, there.

I don't think so. I believe Lurker's point was that the NAACP does indeed call out cases of 'reverse racism'. They certainly seem to have done so in the case of Shirley Sherrod.

[ANTPogo]

I don't think so. I believe Lurker's point was that the NAACP does indeed call out cases of 'reverse racism'. They certainly seem to have done so in the case of Shirley Sherrod.

Yes, and whether or not any particular calling out of "reverse racism" is done before obtaining all the facts of a case (as they did with Sherrod) is totally irrelevant to that point.

[GrouchoMarxist]

Yes, and whether or not any particular calling out of "reverse racism" is done before obtaining all the facts of a case (as they did with Sherrod) is totally irrelevant to that point.

Excellent! We are in agreement. The NAACP made an accusation of racism without obtaining all the facts.

[Lurker]

I don't think so. I believe Lurker's point was that the NAACP does indeed call out cases of 'reverse racism'. They certainly seem to have done so in the case of Shirley Sherrod.

Exactly. So here I quickly gave TWO examples just from the past week where the NAACP has condemned blacks being racist against whites. I would imagine I could find plenty more if I bothered to look more deeply.

BAC, what say you?

[ANTPogo]

Excellent! We are in agreement. The NAACP made an accusation of racism without obtaining all the facts.

Which, once again, has nothing at all to do with the point Lurker was making.

Do you have a point you're trying to make?

[Lurker]

Which, once again, has nothing at all to do with the point Lurker was making.

Do you have a point you're trying to make?

Correct, my point was to demonstrate that the NAACP is willing to condemn their own for racism against whites.

I think GM's point is to show the NAACP acted before the evidence was in, much like the media and the govt did. Somewhat of a nonsequitor.

[Juniversal]

Excellent! We are in agreement. The NAACP made an accusation of racism without obtaining all the facts.No. They condemnded her apparently racist behavior without getting all the facts and retracted their condemnation once the full context of her statement was known.

[Lurker]

No. They condemnded her apparently racist behavior without getting all the facts and retracted their condemnation once the full context of her statement was known.

Yes, that is what GM said.

[eeyore1954]

Exactly. So here I quickly gave TWO examples just from the past week where the NAACP has condemned blacks being racist against whites. I would imagine I could find plenty more if I bothered to look more deeply.

BAC, what say you?

Are there examples from before the last couple of weeks when this started?
This week they were sort of forced to. I don't doubt that prior examples of them condeming racism in their ranks exist.

[Juniversal]

Yes, that is what GM said.Maybe i'm reading too much into semantics but accusing someone of being racist and condeming racist or discriminatory behavior is not the same thing.

[Grizzly Bear]

That's a tough one to swallow.
Because you did not read what preceded that comparison which should have hinted I was referencing the way in which people making the racist charges are reading data:

Questions such as those addressed in both the WISER and the NYtimes polls do more to measure political ideology -- one of the core Tea Party values being self-sufficiency and responsibility -- than they do to establish any kind of "racial resentment".

Parker, the lead researcher in the WISER poll tried to create a control for ideology by comparing examples of "conservative" Republican Tea Party supporters with "conservative" Republican Tea Party critics. Yet in doing so he assumes that conservative means the same thing for everyone, removing ideological differences. In the WISER case other problems that you run into include the small sample size, and extreme limitation of samples to several states. And to top it off both the NYtimes and WISER's failure to disentangle ideology from racial attitudes is more than enough justification to render the polls indecisive if not to question their validity all together with respect to labeling the tea party racist.

Low sampling, and failure to look at the broader context of answers to those questions, and then making a comparison to something... You'll forgive me if I find that standard of proof a bit lacking.



I don't think asking if the Tea Party has racist elements is even the right question anymore.

No question there are "racist elements" in the movement that want to use the agenda of the tea party to raise their own. Your insinuation that this potentially represents the movement as whole however is lacking seriously on the evidence. You "demonstrated" the widespread tea party racism by posting links to pictures of people holding racist signs, and Obama-hitler posters. I can play that game too; why don't I scrap up every (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/04/how-quickly-they-forget/) single (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/nooseLastMohican.jpg) incident (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HINhfkQAz1g) I could (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgu7qsqhNaQ&feature=related) find (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612) of individuals (http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20090816) and leaders (http://feedblog.org/2006/10/08/john-kerry-threatens-to-kill-president-bush-on-bill-maher/) within the anti bush crowd promoting violence and hate, and then talk about how this is proof that all democrats have this mentality embedded in their ideology or actions. I'm pretty sure if I decided to go in that direction saying you'd have just a few objections would be an gross understatement. You might of course remain unconvinced that this is in any way comparable to your evidence standards, and continue pointing out to me how all the individuals making clowns of themselves with racially charged content proves the tea party as a whole is potentially racist. But I'm not interested in that game

[johnny karate]

No question there are "racist elements" in the movement that want to use the agenda of the tea party to raise their own. Your insinuation that this potentially represents the movement as whole however is lacking seriously on the evidence.

My position on the Tea Party has been made clear. I don't think they are necessarily a racist organization, but they certainly have an open door policy for racists. And I don't think I owe them the benefit of the doubt on this issue. It's not my fault racists keep cropping up in their ranks.

You "demonstrated" the widespread tea party racism by posting links to pictures of people holding racist signs, and Obama-hitler posters.

No, I didn't. What I provided were links to established, high-ranking members of the Tea Party engaging in racist behavior.

I can play that game too; why don't I scrap up every (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/08/04/how-quickly-they-forget/) single (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/wp-content/images2009/nooseLastMohican.jpg) incident (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HINhfkQAz1g) I could (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgu7qsqhNaQ&feature=related) find (http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612) of individuals (http://www.ringospictures.com/index.php?page=20090816) and leaders (http://feedblog.org/2006/10/08/john-kerry-threatens-to-kill-president-bush-on-bill-maher/) within the anti bush crowd promoting violence and hate, and then talk about how this is proof that all democrats have this mentality embedded in their ideology or actions. I'm pretty sure if I decided to go in that direction saying you'd have just a few objections would be an gross understatement.

My first objection would be the obvious one: No established, high-ranking members of the Democratic party engaged in such behavior, so the analogy falls woefully short. (I'm afraid clumsy attempts at jokes don't qualify.)

You might of course remain unconvinced that this is in any way comparable to your evidence standards, and continue pointing out to me how all the individuals making clowns of themselves with racially charged content proves the tea party as a whole is potentially racist. But I'm not interested in that game

Fair enough. But the fact remains that the wing-nuttery of the Left during the Bush administration wasn't nearly as embraced by the mainstream as the wing-nuttery of the Right is now.

[BeAChooser]

I would think you would do your research before you post. The NAACP is NOT a "black only" organization. There are white members of the NAACP.

You are correct. My mistake. There are indeed some white NAACP members and there have been since the organization's founding. It's charter does not say *no whites allowed*. But, tell us, what percentage of its' 500,000 plus membership would you say are white or even caucasian? Perhaps we can tell by looking at the Kansas City convention where the Tea Party was condemned? How many of the attendees were white?

There's a picture of the attendees here: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/07/naacp_convention_considers_res.html , listening to Michelle's Obama's address a large audience. There *might* be a white face or two in that group. Here are a whole bunch of other photos from the convention from the NAACP website: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1432467@N24/pool/show/ . Take a look at the photo taken from the back of the room when Michelle was speaking. Hundreds and hundreds of people in the audience and I frankly don't see more than 2 or 3 whites. I'd hazard that well over 99% of the attendees were black.

Now why would an organization that you appear to be implying *welcomes* whites have so few whites in it? Perhaps because it doesn't exactly welcome them? Because I sure don't think that only 1% or less of whites are racists and wouldn't want to join such a fine cause, do you? Whereas the Tea Party quite publically welcomes blacks and would like to see many more join, and even speak at their events. Because the agenda of the Tea Party, in contrast to that of the NAACP, isn't about race. Race is a distraction to the Tea Party, not the core cause. Making it far more likely that a racist would be attracted to an NAACP meeting than to a Tea Party.

And I certainly wouldn't say the Tea Party has a "significant" number of black members. That's an exaggeration at best.

No, it is not. As I noted in post #104, a poll by CBS (a very leftist media outlet which wouldn't like to see a lot of blacks at Tea Party events) found that 1 percent of the party was black. Now that might not sound like a lot but it would require participation of about 10% of all blacks. Gallup concluded that "demographically, [Tea Party members] are generally representative of the public at large" because they found that 6% of the membership is black. And a CNN poll found that 2% of people who described themselves as "Tea Party Activists" were black. (And 10% were latino.) This doesn't sound at all unreasonable and would represent a far larger percentage of blacks than the percentage who didn't vote of Obama.

And there's still huge disparities between whites and blacks that would warrant an organization like the NAACP to remain in existence.

Are the huge disparities caused by racism, however? I think not. I suggest that the disparities in income, education, etc, are the consequence of blacks subscribing to the victicrat and dependency mentality promoted by democrat leaders and a long string of racebaiting, black leaders the last 4 or 5 decades? The black community was making huge strides economically before the welfare state came along and made unwed babies and welfare a source of livelihood. I suggest the current situation of blacks is also the result of tolerating drugs and gangs in their neighborhoods, and tolerating those who demean blacks who work hard and excel in school. It's a consequence of blowing the current degree of racism out of proportion, of promoting reverse racism, and playing the race card at every turn (to such a degree that employers may now be leery of hiring black workers due the legal and government-related problems it can cause them). Try firing a black employee for cause without charges of racism being raised. It's a consequence of demeaning anyone in the black community who is not a liberal … of labeling successful conservatives like Larry Elder and even Colin Powell as "Uncle Toms". It's a consequence of betting on socialism rather than capitalism. Sorry, Juniversal, but I think that much of the disparity is now self-induced. And that's not a racist statement, just an observation of what appear to be the facts.


And yes that guy giving the speech is an idiot.

And so are the people bringing signs to Tea Party rallies that might be interpreted as racist. But that doesn't make the Tea Party any more racist than the NAACP because of this man. Maybe less so because Tea Party members have shown themselves willing to get in the face of idiots and ask them to leave. I don't see any evidence of NAACP members challenging people who call any successful conservative black or black who does not toe the line with their socialist, leftist agenda an "Uncle Tom" and traitor. Both organizations have idiots. It's just an unavoidable fact of life. So the NAACP has no right pointing fingers. That is totally hypocritical.

Regardless something doesn't sit right with me about the Gladney attack.

Since you appear to want to defend the attackers, let's go over the facts. The following was in the left-leaning Saint Louis Post Dispatch (the article has been scrubbed from their site although they've kept one report of their own reporter getting arrested that evening - http://videos.stltoday.com/p/video?id=5489769 - as if that's more newsworthy) shortly after the incident:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/5420430FDF2036F08625760B00136BBC?OpenDocument


-- Two men were arrested for misdemeanor assault for allegedly punching, pushing and holding a man who was handing out American flags and fliers outside the school.

-- One woman was arrested for misdemeanor assault and destruction of property for allegedly pushing another woman who was recording the events on her cell phone, then grabbing the phone and breaking it.

-- One woman was arrested for interference and resisting arrest. One officer used pepper spray on the woman, police said, when she did not comply with officers' demands. That woman "just would not leave," when asked by officers to back away from the scuffles, said spokesman Rick Eckhard said. She also passively resisted when an officer tried to handcuff her, he said.

-- One man was arrested for peace disturbance when he entered a circle of people who had gathered near the pepper-sprayed woman and refused to comply with officers' demands to leave

-- Post-Dispatch reporter Jake Wagman also was arrested for allegedly interfering.

... snip ...

Kenneth Gladney, 38, an activist from St. Louis who believes in a no-tax stance, said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with "Don't tread on me" printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room on Thursday night at St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was awaiting treatment for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face.


And here's a still image from the beginning of one videos of the incident:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7NKa1sIQ3kQ/Sn9KTYv4AII/AAAAAAAAAHE/tjjyksomznk/s1600-h/SEIUonground.jpg

Gladney is clearly on the ground at the beginning and trying to get up. Eyewitnesses say the beating took place before that … that the video caught only the tail end of the altercation. The bulk of the witnesses who were there fingered the SEIU members for starting the trouble.

Here's the rest of the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTXBOgPCh9w (warning ... foul language)

The video shows Gladney getting up, and a man in the white shirt rolling Elston McCowan (one of the SEIU thugs) onto his back. The man in the white shirt later told police that McCowan had attacked Gladney. A SEIU thug named Perry Molens then throws Gladney to the ground, before falling down himself, while another woman yells at Molens to get off him. There are several people involved in stopping the action, and they are all witnesses. None of them have come forward to substantiate McCowan's story, nor has anyone else from SEIU, despite there being purple HCAN (SEIU) shirts all over. Many have substantiated Gladney's version of what happened.

Here's more coverage of the incident from another camera:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjzEPcp3r7U&feature=player_embedded

In these videos you can hear Molens yelling at someone, telling him to shut up or come fight him somewhere else. Several tea party protestors ask if that's the union way. There is also an eyewitness calmly telling the officers that McCowan started the fight. You can also hear a man saying, "they were whaling on him." That sounds like it backs up Gladney's story too, since no second person is claimed by McCowan or Molens or anyone to have attacked McCowan. Gladney also repeats the same story he told the next day - that McCowan approached him, accosted, him, slapped, his hands, and then punched his face. The videos clearly supports Gladney and not the SEIU thugs. And by the way, you can also see in the second video that the women holding the camera was attacked by an HCAN/SEIU supporter (which led to one of the arrests noted in the newspaper article above).

And here's the police report with witness statements of the incident:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/15739780/GLADNEY-PART-21


While waiting for additional units to make it to my location, I attempted to detain Suspects Molens and McCowen for a further investigation of the incident. I had to tell Suspects Molens and McCowen to remain in front of me several times, as they tried numerous times to get lost in the crowd and get past me.

… snip ...

I then contacted Witness #1, Harris Himes. Witness H. Himes stated that as he was leaving the school gymnasium, he saw Suspect McCowan talking to Victim Gladney. He stated he saw Suspect McCowan reach over the table and punch Victim Gladney in the face. This assault knocked the victim off balance. Suspect Molens then went around the table and pulled Victim Gladney over the table backwards by the back of his shirt collar. He began to punch and kick Victim Gladney. Witness H. Himes added that while Suspect Molens was kicking and punching Victim Gladney, Suspect McCowan then join in on the assault.

Witness #2, Sandra Himes', statement of the incident concurred with Harris' account of the incident. She did add that Victim Gladney did nothing to provoke this assault.

At this time I was contacted by the victim, Kenneth E. Gladney. I asked Victim Gladney if he needed medical attention as I tried to determine if he was okay. Victim Gladney appeared shaken and his clothes were in disarray. Victim Gladney stated that he would convey himself to the hospital at a later time to be evaluated. I then asked Victim Gladney what happened during the assault.

Gladney stated that he was handing out pens and buttons outside the gym. He stated that is when Suspects Molens and McCowan, along with a third suspect who is unidentified at this time, walked by his table. Suspect McCowan picked up one of the buttons from Gladney's table and said, "Who's selling this (BAC - a four letter word which I fear JREF censors might not like)?" Victim Gladney stated, "I'm not selling anything, It's free." At this time Suspect McCowan said "What kind of (BAC - the N-word) are you?" Suspect McCowan then reached across the table and punched Victim Gladney in the face. Victim Gladney added that Suspect Molens grabbed him from behind, at which time he was struck several times and taken to the ground. At this time he was struck several more times. He doesn't know how many people struck him or how many times exactly he was struck after he was on the ground.

I observed no facial injury, although Victim Gladney was holding his left elbow complaining that it was hurting. Victim Gladney added that his elbow was hurt after he was thrown to the ground.

I was then contacted by Witness #3, [blanked out name] gave a similar account of the original assault. I would like to add that when I originally walked up to the crowd, Witness [blanked out] was one of the individuals being yelled at by Suspect Molens.

It should be noted that while I was gathering the information from this assault, several additional assaults and unlawful behaviors occurred.


The police report and witness statements clearly corroborate Gladney's version of things, not your partisan motivated rendition or the claims of those SEIU thugs.

And I supppose you didn't know who was standing next to the NAACP member you identified as an idiot for calling Gladney an Uncle Tom? None other than Elston McCowan. You want to hear him speak at that meeting? Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCAYipcuTAI "Elston McCowan, NAACP, others laugh at calling Kenneth Gladney the N word"

And here is some more video from that event which apparently was set up by the NAACP (since they are all standing behind a NAACP podium to speak) to defend and applaud the two SEIU thugs who attacked Gladney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEAX1dHVeqo&feature=related "Elston McCowan & Perry Molens Press Release 5.5.10 Part 2"

What is said behind that NAACP podium is nothing but lies. McCowan and Molens aren't the weak victims they are made out to be. The real story about McCowan and Molens is this. The are lying union THUGS with a long history.

Do you know that McCowan originally told the St. Louis Post Dispatch (“Two sides blame each other in fracas at forum”, August 8, 2009, by Patrick M. O’Connell) that he was walking to his car and was jumped out of nowhere:

“Out of nowhere, the guy just assaults me,” said McCowan, 47, of St. Louis."


Then, a week later, his story changed.

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/17/seius-targeted-townhall-violence-you-started-it-and-now-you-dont-like-it/#more-32226


On August 13th, a full week after the attack, in an interview with Don Fitz of the St Louis Gateway Greens (BAC - “United States: Industry-backed opponents of healthcare reform react with racism, violence”, LINKS International Journal of Socialist Renewal, August 14, 2009, by Don Fitz), McCowan relates what he claims is the real story behind the attack:

“When I pointed at the button, Gladney slapped my hand. So I told him not to hit me and pointed at it again and repeated my question. He smacked my hand even harder, hit me several times and pushed me down. As I went down, I grabbed him by reflex to break my fall. I hit my shoulder and something popped. I lost consciousness for a moment but soon realised that Gladney continued to hit me.

“Another SEIU guy, Perry Molens, came over and told Gladney, ‘He’s a minister and won’t fight back. He can’t see out of one eye. Stop hitting him!’. When Gladney kept on, Perry tried to get him off of me and threw a punch in the process.



Seems, like most liars, that he couldn't keep his story straight.

Because it's an absolutely ridiculous tale. That a 130 pound diabetic and leukemia survivor attacked a 6 foot, 220 lb "minister" and beat him till he was lost consciousness, while his sweet 6 foot 5 inch tall companion , Perry Molens, begged Gladney to stop. :rolleyes:

I'm not buying this righteous, noble act. Not from McCowan, Molens or the NAACP. The NAACP is a racist, violent, highly-partisan organization because they knowingly support racist, violent SEIU thugs like these two and even allow them to speak at NAACP sponsored events, where NAACP audiences clearly support what is the obvious racism they are displaying.

As for Gladney walking around after the assault, he was probably in a state of shock at being accosted by men twice his size in the manner described above. His glasses were knocked off. He was hit in the face. He's holding his elbow in pain. Any more serious injuries (like internal ones) likely were only noticed once the adrenaline began to wear off. By the way, the hospital report is going to help convict those SEIU thugs too.

And do you want to know how the SEIU media spokesperson reported this incident initially? With lies, of course. Here:

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/17/seius-targeted-townhall-violence-you-started-it-and-now-you-dont-like-it/#more-32226

When reports first came out of violence at the Russ Carnahan TownHall in Missouri, SEIU flacks jumped into their media spin machine and got to work. Tim Targaris, the SEIU new media spokesman started the party with a Tweet declaring:

Seven teabaggers arrested at Missouri town-hall event today. One SEIU staffer sent to hospital (shoulder) and will be ok. 9:01 p.m. August 6th.


But of course, you now know that it was five HCAN (a health care front group for SEIU) thugs who were arrested, not seven Tea Party members. And the other two who were arrested were members of a somewhat left-leaning news organization who got in the way. No Tea Party members were arrested. Gladney wasn't arrested. The SEIU just spouted lies expecting fools to believe them. Is that what you are, Juniversal?

And despite the obvious lies in the SEIU's statement, Tagaris is still the New Media Director for the SEIU? Aren't you the least offended by this, Juniversal? Or do you wish to defend them doing that too?

And guess what a democrat prosecutor did regarding this case … after first waiting three months before filing any charges against SEIU members (perhaps hoping it would just go away?)?

http://thedanashow.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/st-louis-county-prosecutors-never-checked-gladney-hospital-records/


St. Louis County Prosecutors watered-down the charges in the Kenneth Gladney case from a misdemeanor to an ordinance violation without so much as even calling St. John’s Hospital, where Gladney received treatment for his injuries, and checking Gladney’s hospital record or speaking with care providers on site.


And now every effort is being made to delay the trial until after the November election because a conviction might not look good for democrats. And the leftist portions of the media continue to just ignore what was quite obviously thuggery and a hate crime. Against a black man. That seems racist to me. Yes, it most certainly does.

In fact, here is the way Keith Olbermann finally reported the Gladney incident in January … after charges had finally been filed (see 1:46 into the following video):

http://storyballoon.org/videos/keith-olbermann-and-chris-hayes-lay-in-on-james-okeefes-landrieu-incident/


and just as it would seem as health care opponents lied about the summer time confrontation when witnesses claimed a teabagger was brutally beaten despite video tape that really shows him not being brutally beaten


And you apparently bought Olberman's lie, Juniversal. Or are trying to promote your own batch of lies. Either way, it's disgusting. Can leftists get any more despicable or obvious in their dishonesty than in this case?

And with all that evidence in hand, what does the NAACP do? Why take the side of the SEIU thugs', of course. What sort of idiots do they take us to be? And if you want to continue to defend their decision to do that, you go right ahead. Because I think that your doing that will only tell ANY rational, or even slightly rational, person reading this thread where your head is now stuck.

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
Before you act all high and mighty, Mumbles, will you call the NAACP racist for the way they treated Mr Gladney? Did you look at that video?

I think Juniversal covered that.

I direct your attention to post #337. Because your head might be stuck in the same place as Juniveral's.

[BeAChooser]

I have no sympathy for Gladney. He's a mediocre actor at best.

... deleted ...

[pipelineaudio]

Not long ago people in this forum were calling the hispanics in the Arizona Minutemen racists...against mexicans.

Forgive me if I wait and see how this plays out

[BeAChooser]

You lost me at "Dennis Prager".

Only proving how close minded you are. :)

[BeAChooser]

So they made the accusation of racism before getting the facts?

Yes, there are more facts. Perhaps it's time a few of them were discussed.

How about we discuss the Gladney case and the NAACP clearly favoring SEIU thugs who committed what looks like a racially motivated hate crime?

Or let's discuss Sherrod making a big thing about racial reconcilliation then proceding to attack Bush and republicans as racists in her speech?

Maybe she isn't quite as *reconcilliated* as she wants the public to now think?

Or shall we discuss the fact that congress may investigate Sherrod's hiring at the USDA, immediately after she received the Pigford Farms settlement? Here's representative Steve King (republican, Iowa) who is on the Agriculture Committee) talking about that:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5gRklaVG6U&feature=player_embedded


The Pigford Farms settlement, that started back in around 1995, the mid-nineties. Dan Glickman was Secretary of Agriculture under Bill Clinton. There were some allegations made that the USDA had discriminated against black farmers and had declined to or refused to provide them the same kind of programs that they may have provided had they been white, … snip … And in this case Dan Glickman stood up and told the world that the USDA had in fact, according to his opinion, discriminated against black farmers. That turned into a class action suit of which there was negotiated settlement and that negotiated settlement included allowing black farmers or those who wanted to be black farmers to file claims. There was a statute of limitations on that consent decree … snip … and around a billion dollars was spent and distributed to help compensate for the allegations of descrimination.

And I have sat with the individual who administered and dealt with most of that and talked to these black farmers, and also I had people from Iowa from my district, whom I know who kept files on this and were deployed down into the southern part of the United States to help settle this consent decree. And they came back and the highest percentage of ... , let's say the lowest percentage of the claims they said were fraud but they had to settle anyway was 75 percent. Some allege that 99% of this is fraud. We know that there were attorneys advocating within the black churches, especially in the South, telling people 'this is your 40 acres and a mule, you'll be compensated for the sins of the fathers of the people that are paying the taxes today'. In other words, compensated by the defendants of slave owners and everybody else for that matter.

And so here's … what this came out to be was and it [was] brought to my attention because on the Judiciary Committee there was a bill forward by Bobby Scott, African American democrat from Virginia, who wanted to and did effectively extend the statute of limitations for the Pickford Farms case, and in doing so open it up again. Now they first were talking about one to two thousand claims, and the number of claims went over 20,000, and even the President of the Black Farmers testified that there were only 18,000 black farmers in all of America, so what we are doing is paying every black farmer out of the borrowed US treasury because of something that one might consider to be I guess white guilt.


So yes, since you folks insist, let's keep talking about the Sherrod Case. Because Sherrod not only was an initiator of the Pigford Farms case, she received the largest award, so far, for her company, New Communities, Inc, which was a bankrupt commune-type land trust held by Sherrod and her husband. She got $13 million. She and her husband personally received $150,000 each to compensate them for “pain and suffering” and there was an unspecified amount paid to her for something called "forgiveness of debt".

Now don't you find it odd that just days after receiving this award she was hired by the Obama adminstration's USDA head, Tom Vilsack, who was even named as a defendant in the Pigford suit? Representative King does and says congress should investigate. Was this a shake down that Obama administration democrat's like Vilsack knowingly aided? And I hope Steve King also investigates the actions of FLAG, which Sherrod belonged to at the time, which appears to be an ACORN like organization to organize farmers. How deep does the corruption run, folks?

[BeAChooser]

BAC, what say you?

I say it's not the acts the organization does something about that make it racist ... it's the racist acts it doesn't. Like the Gladney case.

[BeAChooser]

I don't think they are necessarily a racist organization, but they certainly have an open door policy for racists.

That is a lie. There are numerous examples of their confronting people that appeared to be racists in their ranks. We've posted numerous links to black members of the Tea Party who've said they've seen that happen. Why do you just ignore that?

But the fact remains that the wing-nuttery of the Left during the Bush administration wasn't nearly as embraced by the mainstream as the wing-nuttery of the Right is now.

Another falsehood. There were top ranked democrats essentially calling Bush Hitler and our soldiers goose stepping Nazi's in Congressional speeches.

[Grizzly Bear]

My first objection would be the obvious one: No established, high-ranking members of the Democratic party engaged in such behavior, so the analogy falls woefully short. (I'm afraid clumsy attempts at jokes don't qualify.)
As we found out with Williams people don't really discriminate between clumsy jokes and legitimate threats when they're highly inappropriate. Granted Williams' case is quite different for a couple of reasons, the secret service doesn't take such jokes lightly (example linked in the article you read for that). I think the analogy stands, but otherwise you and I are gonna have to agree to disagree

[ANTPogo]

So, BAC, despite your earlier condemnation of Breitbart falsely accusing Sharrod of racism, you're now posting, in your usual oh-my-god-the-text-is-eating-my-eyes style, that maybe she's a racist after all (the ironclad evidence of which is that she apparently thinks the Bush Administration was less than stellar in its civil rights record) and is definitely a corrupt politican who got a settlement for falsely claiming she was discriminated against by the USDA, and therefore should be investigated.

I'm disappointed that your obsession with proving your side "right" at all costs is apparently driving you to now attack the actual victim in the Sharrod case.

And that obsession also made you miss the fact that no one is arguing that Gladney was injured at a Tea Party rally, and that those who injured him were arrested and charged. What's being pointed out to you is that he was not "brutally beaten by racist thugs" to the point where he had to be in a wheelchair afterwards, but instead was in a brawl whose cause apparently had more to do with his Tea Party politics than his race. And that brawl left him with no marks on his face, and while he had an injured elbow, he was perfectly capable of moving around and standing up and declining medical treatment and driving himself to the hospital much later.

In other words, Gladney got in a fight, and exaggerated both what happened and his injuries.

[johnny karate]

That is a lie. There are numerous examples of their confronting people that appeared to be racists in their ranks. We've posted numerous links to black members of the Tea Party who've said they've seen that happen. Why do you just ignore that?

No, it's most certainly not a lie. I've posted many examples of high-ranking established members of the the Tea Party who engaged in racist behavior. Granted, in most cases, they were immediately expelled (perhaps out of political expedience more than anything else). But in Mark Williams' case in particular, he's been saying racially inflammatory things for the better part of a year, and has only now been "expelled" from the Tea Party. (I put "expelled" in quotation marks because even though one Tea Party organization expelled him, I'm not aware he has been expelled from the Tea Party organization he actually represents.)

One has to wonder how and why these types of incidents keep cropping up.

And to your second point and question, I tend to ignore anecdotal evidence because it's anecdotal.

Another falsehood. There were top ranked democrats essentially calling Bush Hitler and our soldiers goose stepping Nazi's in Congressional speeches.

You seem to have lapsed in your penchant for heavily sourcing your claims.

[johnny karate]

As we found out with Williams people don't really discriminate between clumsy jokes and legitimate threats when they're highly inappropriate. Granted Williams' case is quite different for a couple of reasons, the secret service doesn't take such jokes lightly (example linked in the article you read for that). I think the analogy stands, but otherwise you and I are gonna have to agree to disagree

I won't agree to that. ;)

But seriously, an offhand remark on a racy cable show is analogous to a premeditated racist screed on a blog? Youtube is full of clips of politicians and public figures putting their foots in their mouths. If that's going to be the standard, then the signal to noise ratio will render any discussion of this topic utterly meaningless.

[BeAChooser]

So, BAC, despite your earlier condemnation of Breitbart falsely accusing Sharrod of racism

I did not say that. I said that "the videotape excerpt released by Breitbart was out of context and incomplete, and that she was indeed relating a story about racial conciliation by her and it was actually a plea for more racial reconciliation." I said Breitbart needed to issue an apology for that reason … that he posted something knowingly or unknowingly (we still don't know which) out of context. Not because he accused her of racism. We still don't even know if he had the full speech.

As for why I'm now posting about additional statements that were in the speech, I was quite willing to simply drop this matter and move on. But some on your side (like you) insist on trying to use this matter … out of context … for your own political advantage. In that, you are no different than what you accuse Breitbart of doing, assuming he even had access to the full speech at the time he posted his original article like you now do.

What I'm doing now is noting the full context that you appear to want to ignore. That Sherrod doesn't appear to be quite as big a proponent of racial reconcilliation as the excerpts your side now wants to only focus on would suggest. Like I noted, immediately after calling for racial reconciliation, she turned around and accused republicans who are against health care of being racists. How else should we interpret this statement in the speech


I haven't seen such mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried resurfaced. Now we endured eight years of the Bushes and we didn't do the stuff these republicans are doing because you have a black President.


but as a racist statement about republicans? And the audience loudly applauds it, proving that they harbor racist sentiments too. It is OUTRIGHT FALSE to accuse republicans with this wide of brush of being against Obamacare because Obama is black. And mind you, this is a government employee doing this. Here job is NOT to foster racist sentiments among black audiences as she appears to have done.

I'm disappointed that your obsession with proving your side "right" at all costs is apparently driving you to now attack the actual victim in the Sharrod case.

LOL! I'm disappointed with your side for not wanting to look at the full context of this issue but instead wanting to win by focusing only on a few of the statements and acts of Sherrod and the NAACP. She is not the victim you make her out to be and is talking about suing Breitbart. I'd actually like to see her do that because I don't think it would turn out quite the way she and your side imagine. Because, like I've pointed out, there is much more to this story. :D

And that obsession also made you miss the fact that no one is arguing that Gladney was injured at a Tea Party rally

Apparently, you missed what Juniversal wrote:


I have no sympathy for Gladney. He's a mediocre actor at best.


And then he linked an article that states this:


it's readily apparent that Gladney seems completely unhurt.


There are indeed people on your side of this issue claiming Gladney wasn't injured. Not injured at all.

What's being pointed out to you is that he was not "brutally beaten by racist thugs" to the point where he had to be in a wheelchair afterwards

You don't know that for a fact. Do you have access to the hospital records? No. Or the records of Gladney's personal physician? No. You are just spinning excuses now. Do you know the hospital records apparently include a trip to the pharmacy for pain killers? Would they prescribe prescription pain killers if he wasn't injured? Regardless of your answer, I suspect those records are going to be admitted as evidence by the prosecution at the upcoming trial of those SEIU thugs (yes, it is going to happen although your side may succeed in delaying that till after the November election). Bet the testimony of Gladney's wife and family who got to look at the bruises on his ribs and upper torso will be entered into evidence, too. :D

Bet they also enter into the record the fact that McCowan made public statements that he was there that night of his own accord, because he was an aging father yet was awarded workman's compensation for claimed injuries there. Isn't that against the law … getting workman's compensation for injuries sustained on your own time rather than on the job?

Bet they also enter into the record the fact that official SEIU statements said they sent no staff to the event, yet the SEIU was originally paying the criminal legal expenses for McCowan and Molens. Hmmmmmmmm. Wonder if the NAACP chipped in too. :D

but instead was in a brawl whose cause apparently had more to do with his Tea Party politics than his race.

If that's true, then why did McCowan immediately bring race into the issue during the initial attack? He admits doing that, although he claims (probably falsely) that he didn't use the N-word we've all come to know as the N-word, but instead just called Gladney a "negro". As for Gladney's politics, he was just a vendor. He was dressed as a vender. And do you know that earlier in the year there are photographs of him out selling Obama buttons? He wasn't political. It wasn't about politics, it was about about his race. It was racial hatred at someone the thugs perceived to be an "Uncle Tom" and traiter to "the cause". Just like the hatred expressed at that NAACP meeting I linked with a video. And if you can't see that, ANTPogo, you also have your head stuck where Juniversal's seems to be.

In other words, Gladney got in a fight, and exaggerated both what happened and his injuries.

Except the video taped evidence, all the witness statements, the police report, and the medical records will prove in court that you are busy spinning nothing but lies. To defend racists. Too bad we can't drag you into court and put you under oath before you say these things. :D

[Grizzly Bear]

No, it's most certainly not a lie. I've posted many examples of high-ranking established members of the the Tea Party who engaged in racist behavior. Granted, in most cases, they were immediately expelled (perhaps out of political expedience more than anything else). But in Mark Williams' case in particular, he's been saying racially inflammatory things for the better part of a year, and has only now been "expelled" from the Tea Party. (I put "expelled" in quotation marks because even though one Tea Party organization expelled him, I'm not aware he has been expelled from the Tea Party organization he actually represents.)

Williams is a talk show host. And he's trying to get up there with Rush Limbaugh in the top listened to shows in the nation. I have to wonder if his history is that surprising at all considering he's certainly given off the impression he'd target just about any topic to cater to his audience and up his career before he considering what he's representing to an entire movement. Perhaps you could argue that this is no better than actually being racist, but I think there's a disconnect between he who tries to get any kind of attention, and the low tier nu bags that actually believe in the racism crusade.

Speaking of which he's resigning (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-tea-party-20100724,0,5106146.story) precisely because he agrees that his remarks have fueled these kinds of conceptions about the movement. Albeit his quite stubborn when it comes to apologizing for making his remarks.

I won't agree to that. ;)

But seriously, an offhand remark on a racy cable show is analogous to a premeditated racist screed on a blog?

More appropriately people see statements like this out of context and then they assign a whole new meaning to it as a result, instead of focusing on the real issues that are taking place. That's pretty much the foundation of the point I was making.

Also I take the first line of that last one with lulz (in a good way) ;)

[BeAChooser]

Granted, in most cases, they were immediately expelled

QED. Thanks for acknowledging exactly what I said. :D

And to your second point and question, I tend to ignore anecdotal evidence because it's anecdotal.

Show of hands. How many believe that is really jk's reason for ignoring the many statements of black Tea Party members? :D

You seem to have lapsed in your penchant for heavily sourcing your claims.

Since you insist ...

The late Senator Byrd, in March of 2005 gave a speech on the Senate floor comparing republican efforts to end a democrat filibuster of Bush's court nominees to Hitler's manipulations of the law (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/003963.php ). On another occasion he compared the Bush media operation surrounding the Iraq war to that run by Herman Goering. True, these aren't examples of him calling Bush Hitler but they are still rather outrageous statements coming from democrat leadership.

But how about this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557447/Bush-like-Hitler-says-first-Muslim-in-Congress.html


Bush like Hitler, says first Muslim in Congress

America's first Muslim congressman has provoked outrage by apparently comparing President George W Bush to Adolf Hitler and hinting that he might have been responsible for the September 11 attacks.


And can you name any democrats in congress or the democrat party's leadership who condemned Congressman Ellison's statements?

Or this:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/08/stunner-pelosis-supporters-and-allies-created-bush-hitler-ads-during-2004-election/


Stunner… Pelosi’s Supporters and Allies Created Bush-Hitler Ads During 2004 Election


And that article notes that Pelosi also compared Tea Party members to Nazis.

Don't think for one minute there's not mountains of nuttery on the left.

[Juniversal]

You are correct. My mistake. There are indeed some white NAACP members and there have been since the organization's founding. It's charter does not say *no whites allowed*. But, tell us, what percentage of its' 500,000 plus membership would you say are white or even caucasian? Perhaps we can tell by looking at the Kansas City convention where the Tea Party was condemned? How many of the attendees were white?

There's a picture of the attendees here: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/07/naacp_convention_considers_res.html , listening to Michelle's Obama's address a large audience. There *might* be a white face or two in that group. Here are a whole bunch of other photos from the convention from the NAACP website: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1432467@N24/pool/show/ . Take a look at the photo taken from the back of the room when Michelle was speaking. Hundreds and hundreds of people in the audience and I frankly don't see more than 2 or 3 whites. I'd hazard that well over 99% of the attendees were black.

Now why would an organization that you appear to be implying *welcomes* whites have so few whites in it? Perhaps because it doesn't exactly welcome them? Because I sure don't think that only 1% or less of whites are racists and wouldn't want to join such a fine cause, do you? Whereas the Tea Party quite publically welcomes blacks and would like to see many more join, and even speak at their events. Because the agenda of the Tea Party, in contrast to that of the NAACP, isn't about race. Race is a distraction to the Tea Party, not the core cause. Making it far more likely that a racist would be attracted to an NAACP meeting than to a Tea Party.Yes most members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are black. Any suprise there? As I said earlier I wouldn't expect an organization created to fight the disenfranchisment of blacks would attract many whites. Simply put white membership is so low because the organizations by design is about blacks. Hmm...I wonder why there's so few young people in the AARP? :boggled:

And if you want to use pictures you'll see the Tea Party is basically lily (http://www.jeffhead.com/912teaparty/912-TeaParty-DC-13k.jpg) white (http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/files/2009/04/teapartyspittsburgh-600x399.jpg).

No, it is not. As I noted in post #104, a poll by CBS (a very leftist media outlet which wouldn't like to see a lot of blacks at Tea Party events) found that 1 percent of the party was black. Now that might not sound like a lot but it would require participation of about 10% of all blacks. Gallup concluded that "demographically, [Tea Party members] are generally representative of the public at large" because they found that 6% of the membership is black. And a CNN poll found that 2% of people who described themselves as "Tea Party Activists" were black. (And 10% were latino.) This doesn't sound at all unreasonable and would represent a far larger percentage of blacks than the percentage who didn't vote of Obama.Wow. A whole 1%. *yawn*

Are the huge disparities caused by racism, however? I think not. I suggest that the disparities in income, education, etc, are the consequence of blacks subscribing to the victicrat and dependency mentality promoted by democrat leaders and a long string of racebaiting, black leaders the last 4 or 5 decades? The black community was making huge strides economically before the welfare state came along and made unwed babies and welfare a source of livelihood. I suggest the current situation of blacks is also the result of tolerating drugs and gangs in their neighborhoods, and tolerating those who demean blacks who work hard and excel in school. It's a consequence of blowing the current degree of racism out of proportion, of promoting reverse racism, and playing the race card at every turn (to such a degree that employers may now be leery of hiring black workers due the legal and government-related problems it can cause them). Try firing a black employee for cause without charges of racism being raised. It's a consequence of demeaning anyone in the black community who is not a liberal … of labeling successful conservatives like Larry Elder and even Colin Powell as "Uncle Toms". It's a consequence of betting on socialism rather than capitalism. Sorry, Juniversal, but I think that much of the disparity is now self-induced. And that's not a racist statement, just an observation of what appear to be the facts.And what exactly prompted this diatribe on "black laziness"? :rolleyes: I simply acknowledged there were disparities. I didn't inquire about the cause. Regardless I do believe institutionalized discrimination was the root insitgator of the "urban underclass". Do you honestly think that without welfare all would be well in the black community and the cumlative effects of 100's of years of poverty, economic dislocation and disenfranchisment would suddenly be reversed? Do you honestly think those on Welfare simply don't want to work? Also where's the statistics that show positive trends before welfare? Honestly i'm intrigued.

Most of your post proves how out of touch you are. I don't know the last time i've heard somebody use the term uncle in waking life (if ever). But i'll admitt I can't stand Larry Elder.

And so are the people bringing signs to Tea Party rallies that might be interpreted as racist. But that doesn't make the Tea Party any more racist than the NAACP because of this man. Maybe less so because Tea Party members have shown themselves willing to get in the face of idiots and ask them to leave. I don't see any evidence of NAACP members challenging people who call any successful conservative black or black who does not toe the line with their socialist, leftist agenda an "Uncle Tom" and traitor. Both organizations have idiots. It's just an unavoidable fact of life. So the NAACP has no right pointing fingers. That is totally hypocritical.Yes most Tea partiers aren't racist. Their simply the epitome of "partisan hacks" who will disappear without a trace the moment a conervative enters office. ;)

Since you appear to want to defend the attackers, let's go over the facts. The following was in the left-leaning Saint Louis Post Dispatch (the article has been scrubbed from their site although they've kept one report of their own reporter getting arrested that evening - http://videos.stltoday.com/p/video?id=5489769 - as if that's more newsworthy) shortly after the incident:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/5420430FDF2036F08625760B00136BBC?OpenDocumentHones tly you just wasted your time creating that wall of text. I never defended anybody. I have no allegience to SEIU or condone any wrong doing. My contention was that Gladney was milking the confrontation and that there was nothing "brutal" or "vicious" about the attack.

The NAACP is a racist, violent, highly-partisan organization because they knowingly support racist, violent SEIU thugs like these two and even allow them to speak at NAACP sponsored events, where NAACP audiences clearly support what is the obvious racism they are displaying.Since the NAACP is a racist organization, are the whites in these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-F2khQudUo&feature=player_embedded) videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yp7UID3seU) also racist? And I fail to see what's racist about a black SEIU member attacking a black conservative. Black on black racism??

As for Gladney walking around after the assault, he was probably in a state of shock at being accosted by men twice his size in the manner described above. His glasses were knocked off. He was hit in the face. He's holding his elbow in pain. Any more serious injuries (like internal ones) likely were only noticed once the adrenaline began to wear off. By the way, the hospital report is going to help convict those SEIU thugs too.

And despite the obvious lies in the SEIU's statement, Tagaris is still the New Media Director for the SEIU? Aren't you the least offended by this, Juniversal? Or do you wish to defend them doing that too?I don't believe for a second Gladney was injured greatly. Mind you i'm not saying he wasn't injured at all. Bruised a litte? Maybe. But If he was beaten so badly that he needed a wheel chair and heavy sedation I gurantee there would be clear outward signs or at LEAST a limp.

And I supppose you didn't know who was standing next to the NAACP member you identified as an idiot for calling Gladney an Uncle Tom? None other than Elston McCowan. You want to hear him speak at that meeting? Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCAYipcuTAI "Elston McCowan, NAACP, others laugh at calling Kenneth Gladney the N word"

And here is some more video from that event which apparently was set up by the NAACP (since they are all standing behind a NAACP podium to speak) to defend and applaud the two SEIU thugs who attacked Gladney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEAX1dHVeqo&feature=related "Elston McCowan & Perry Molens Press Release 5.5.10 Part 2"The host name is apparently Zaki Baruti (President of an organization called The Universal African Peoples Organization). From my understanding Zaki isn't even a member of the NAACP but simply served as the emcee. So are Mr. Baruti's words those of the Missouri NAACP? Not exactly.

Also Perry Molens (the second individual involved in the case) is white. Is he racist as well? Was it black and white ON black racism? Is the NAACP racist for supporting him as well? Also i'll ask again. How is a black man apparently attacking another black man racism?

[thaiboxerken]

The problem is not that the Tea Party is racist. It's that they are the party of hating Obama. They welcome anyone who hates Obama, no matter why they hate him, whether it's race, conspiracies or "legitimate" reasons. If a thousand people hated Obama because he plays basketball as a hobby, they'd be welcome to the Tea Party.

[BeAChooser]

Yes most members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People are black.

Not just most. Almost all. And since you can't seem to provide a percentage, I guess we'll have to stand by my estimate of less than 1%.

And if you want to use pictures you'll see the Tea Party is basically lily white.

What I see are groups with considerable diversity. Of all colors. If you look between the the snake sign on the left side and the "kiss our astroturf" sign, you can see 3 blacks … in a sample numbering perhaps 40 or 50 people. That's 1-2% of the crowd, just like CBS and CNN said. And 1-2% of the crowd is equivalent to between 10-20% of black population. In the second photo I count at least 3 blacks in the first 35 people from the bottom. That's would be between 8 and 9 percent. That's almost consistent with the country's demographics … just like Gallup said. In fact, that's a greater percentage than Gallup claimed for the Tea Party. Beyond that distance, the race of people gets harder to tell, but you can certainly see many black faces in that crowd. So what's the problem? You don't you believe your own leftist media now, Juniversal? You don't believe the photos that you picked out? :D

Wow. A whole 1%. *yawn*

That 1% represents almost 10% of total black population. That's not bad considering that 95% of blacks voted for Obama in the last election. Now you really didn't expect the Tea Party to pull in many blacks who voted for Obama, did you? 90% of registered blacks have consistently voted for democrats in elections. So there being 10% (or more) of the black population in the Tea Party crowds is actually VERY impressive.


Quote:
Are the huge disparities caused by racism, however? I think not. I suggest that the disparities in income, education, etc, are the consequence of blacks subscribing to the victicrat and dependency mentality promoted by democrat leaders and a long string of racebaiting, black leaders the last 4 or 5 decades? The black community was making huge strides economically before the welfare state came along and made unwed babies and welfare a source of livelihood. I suggest the current situation of blacks is also the result of tolerating drugs and gangs in their neighborhoods, and tolerating those who demean blacks who work hard and excel in school. It's a consequence of blowing the current degree of racism out of proportion, of promoting reverse racism, and playing the race card at every turn (to such a degree that employers may now be leery of hiring black workers due the legal and government-related problems it can cause them). Try firing a black employee for cause without charges of racism being raised. It's a consequence of demeaning anyone in the black community who is not a liberal … of labeling successful conservatives like Larry Elder and even Colin Powell as "Uncle Toms". It's a consequence of betting on socialism rather than capitalism. Sorry, Juniversal, but I think that much of the disparity is now self-induced. And that's not a racist statement, just an observation of what appear to be the facts.

And what exactly prompted this diatribe on "black laziness"?

I didn't say or even once allude to "black laziness" in the above. I simply noted that on average blacks are the way liberal democrats like you made them over the last 4 to 5 decades. You made them into victims. You made them dependent . You kept them relatively uneducated (how else do you explain black public education failing so badly when democrats basically controlled the education system for the last 4-5 decades?). And you kept them feeling like they're being held down by racism (even now that a black man has been elected President in a mostly white country). So why did that come to your mind right off the bat? Looks to me like maybe YOU are the one with the problem here, Juniversal.

Do you honestly think that without welfare all would be well in the black community

Prior to LBJ's great society and welfare program, as I said, the black community (and whole country) was making big strides economically. The poverty rate for blacks in 1940 was 87% (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864 ). The poverty rate for blacks in 1958 was over 58% (http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm ). Still high, but it had dropped nearly 30 percent in less than 2 decades thanks to the wonders of capitalism and improving attitudes about race amongst people in this country. And it was still headed downward. In fact, between 1958 and 1964 when the WOP finally began, the black poverty rate dropped to under 50%, an 8% drop in just 6 years. With no massive government intrusion.

But what happened after the government started throwing trillions of dollars at blacks to make them victims and dependent, and create feelings of being entitled? In the first few years, the *official* poverty rate dropped even faster than before (afterall, people were being taken off welfare with government checks … not because the real poverty of not having a job, education etc had been solved). But soon the rate of decrease began to level off. And finally around 1970, just 6 years after the WOP started with welfare spending climbing ever higher and higher, it stopped falling. It never dropped much below the 30% it was in 1970 through the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, in 2008, despite almost 50 years and over ten trillion dollars in spending, the black poverty rate was still at nearly 25%. It dropped a whole 5 percent in nearly 4 decades of MASSIVE welfare spending. And I think you can rest the blame for that squarely on democrat policies.

The damage has been done by 4 to 5 decades and over ten trillion dollars in welfare assistance and victimhood. It will probably take decades to undo the damage you liberals have done to the black psyche, their self-motivation, and self image. Worst of all, you've turned most of them into socialists. A tragedy.

Also where's the statistics that show positive trends before welfare? Honestly i'm intrigued.

Well then re-read to last several paragraphs and for once try to do what democrats never seem able to do … learn from history.

I don't know the last time i've heard somebody use the term uncle in waking life (if ever).

Well I guess you just haven't been attending NAACP meetings. :D

Honestly you just wasted your time creating that wall of text. I never defended anybody.

Show of hands, folks. How many think Juniversal wasn't defending "anybody" in attacking Gladney in the manner he did?

Since the NAACP is a racist organization, are the whites in these videos also racist?

Yes. Haven't I made that clear enough? If they are supporting thugs (who were black and white) singling out and attacking a man because he's black, then they are racists.

And I fail to see what's racist about a black SEIU member attacking a black conservative. Black on black racism??

Well first of all, one of the SEIU thugs was white. Second, you don't think black on black racism is possible? :rolleyes: You don't think the term "Uncle Tom" has anything to do with race? Third, I've already pointed out that Gladney is not a conservative. Just months before the incident he was out selling pro-Obama buttons.

I don't believe for a second Gladney was injured greatly.

But you don't actually know that. You certainly don't know if the doctors advised him to stay off his feet for a few days due to a pain and possible back injury. I have a suspicion that when the trial of the thugs occurs, the medical records will explain that wheelchair. But irregardless, the video and witnesses clearly prove that Gladney was thrown to the ground and "being whaled on" by the SEIU thugs. The intent to cause grevious bodily harm was certainly there.

The host name is apparently Zaki Baruti (President of an organization called The Universal African Peoples Organization). From my understanding Zaki isn't even a member of the NAACP but simply served as the emcee.

Whether he is an NAACP member or not (do you have a source to prove he isn't), it looks like the NAACP had no problem with Mr Baruti standing behind an NAACP podium saying those words? There were numerous NAACP officials there and not one got up and tried to stop him. And numerous NAACP officials spoke that day and denounced Gladney and supported the thugs, even though facts already known at the time proved the thugs were lying. And Baruti is a liar too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5qZ9emllSA&feature=player_embedded#! . Just so you know, there is no evidence whatsoever that Gladney was selling the buttons Mr Baruti via McCowans/Molens claimed. The just the word of some proven liars. Also, The person who sold the buttons to Gladney for resale has stated that he did not send him any buttons like those Baruti described.

Also Perry Molens (the second individual involved in the case) is white. Is he racist as well?

You don't think he is? :rolleyes:

How is a black man apparently attacking another black man racism?

So Gladney being called the N-word at the beginning of the incident is indicative of nothing? :rolleyes:

Just keep digging your hole deeper, Juniversal. :D

[BeAChooser]

http://www.ajc.com/news/sherrod-offered-special-deputy-577877.html


Sherrod offered special deputy director position

… snip …

Sherrod said Saturday that she had yet to decide whether to accept a position as deputy director of the USDA’s Office of Advocacy and Outreach.

… snip …

Vilsack described the role to Sherrod as one that would, among other things, help to end discriminatory practices the department has been accused of concerning the settlement of a 1997 black farmers' discrimination suit.

So Sherrod is being offered a GS-13(perhaps?) position in an office whose stated goal is to "increase access to programs of the Department, and increase the viability and profitability of small farms and ranches, beginning farmers or ranchers, and socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers"? Was it under the auspices of this office that the Pigford suit was settled with her? If you ask me, it sounds like this offer is all the more reason to investigate her and Vilsack, if it's true that 75-99% of the claims paid out in that suit were fraudulant.

And what are her qualifications for such an important job? Just curious. She has a degree in community development but big deal. She failed at farming (a communal … or should we say communist … one). She was a community organizer for many years (belonging to an ACORN like organization) and helped sue the government. What is it that she actually brings to the job … besides working for the government some of her life, believing in "social justice", and apparently harboring some resentment at republicans and whites?

And frankly, I don't see why they can't just give her her old job back if we have to give her any job back. It's not like they've hired anyone for the position yet, have they? Something else is going on here folks. Wonder if she threatened to squeal about something besides Breitbart's mention of her? Why was the Whitehouse so eager originally to get rid of her? Imagine, she said (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_usda_racism_resignation ) she was on the road when the deputy undersecretary for Rural Development called and told her to pull over, and then told her to submit her resignation on her Blackberry because the White House wanted her out immediately? Was there another reason they were so quick to fire her? If you were Obama or Vilsack, would you have reacted so quickly if she was a model and very valuable employee who you'd have liked to keep?

[Juniversal]

Not just most. Almost all. And since you can't seem to provide a percentage, I guess we'll have to stand by my estimate of less than 1%.Why not. 1% it is. ;)


What I see are groups with considerable diversity. Of all colors. If you look between the the snake sign on the left side and the "kiss our astroturf" sign, you can see 3 blacks … in a sample numbering perhaps 40 or 50 people. That's 1-2% of the crowd, just like CBS and CNN said. And 1-2% of the crowd is equivalent to between 10-20% of black population. In the second photo I count at least 3 blacks in the first 35 people from the bottom. That's would be between 8 and 9 percent. That's almost consistent with the country's demographics … just like Gallup said. In fact, that's a greater percentage than Gallup claimed for the Tea Party. Beyond that distance, the race of people gets harder to tell, but you can certainly see many black faces in that crowd. So what's the problem? You don't you believe your own leftist media now, Juniversal? You don't believe the photos that you picked out? :DYour idea of "considerable diversity" is laughable. Since when was two black faces considerable? :confused:


I didn't say or even once allude to "black laziness" in the above. I simply noted that on average blacks are the way liberal democrats like you made them over the last 4 to 5 decades. You made them into victims. You made them dependent . You kept them relatively uneducated (how else do you explain black public education failing so badly when democrats basically controlled the education system for the last 4-5 decades?). And you kept them feeling like they're being held down by racism (even now that a black man has been elected President in a mostly white country). So why did that come to your mind right off the bat? Looks to me like maybe YOU are the one with the problem here, Juniversal.Well considering i'm black I can honestly say I did no such thing. ;) Don't let my speaking in the 3rd person fool you. Also It's not "liberals" that create failure in schools. It's unstable homes, lack of ambition and living without a clear goal in life. Not everything is a matter of liberal vs. conservative BAC. And the black public education system has never succeeded. It has never entered the realm of success for any failure to be attributal to any "liberal policies". I'd say the failure is moreso a social and cultural issue than a political one.

Also I don't believe it's any liberal policies or Democrats that cause blacks to feel victimized. It's simply a matter of being ultra sensitive to any hint of discrimination or racism thanks to it being so deeply ingrained into the American psyche and culture. Afterall it did shape our society and social heirachy. I would say having to agressively fight for equal rights in the face of opposition had a larger role in creating the victim status as opposed to Democrats or Liberals making us believe we were vicitms. You better believe if conservatives ruled the roost black folks wouldn't suddenly stop sub-conciously looking for racism.

Prior to LBJ's great society and welfare program, as I said, the black community (and whole country) was making big strides economically. The poverty rate for blacks in 1940 was 87% (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864 ). The poverty rate for blacks in 1958 was over 58% (http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm ). Still high, but it had dropped nearly 30 percent in less than 2 decades thanks to the wonders of capitalism and improving attitudes about race amongst people in this country. And it was still headed downward. In fact, between 1958 and 1964 when the WOP finally began, the black poverty rate dropped to under 50%, an 8% drop in just 6 years. With no massive government intrusion.

But what happened after the government started throwing trillions of dollars at blacks to make them victims and dependent, and create feelings of being entitled? In the first few years, the *official* poverty rate dropped even faster than before (afterall, people were being taken off welfare with government checks … not because the real poverty of not having a job, education etc had been solved). But soon the rate of decrease began to level off. And finally around 1970, just 6 years after the WOP started with welfare spending climbing ever higher and higher, it stopped falling. It never dropped much below the 30% it was in 1970 through the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, in 2008, despite almost 50 years and over ten trillion dollars in spending, the black poverty rate was still at nearly 25%. It dropped a whole 5 percent in nearly 4 decades of MASSIVE welfare spending. And I think you can rest the blame for that squarely on democrat policies.

The damage has been done by 4 to 5 decades and over ten trillion dollars in welfare assistance and victimhood. It will probably take decades to undo the damage you liberals have done to the black psyche, their self-motivation, and self image. Worst of all, you've turned most of them into socialists. A tragedy.I don't know if it's paticularly realistic to believe the poverty rate would have continued to decline at a steady rate if it wasn't for welfare programs. The structural segregation and poverty the black community suffers alone works as a road block to completely overcoming poverty as a whole.

And why do you think lack of self motivation is some fault of liberal politicians? You seem to think black people have no self control or a mind of their own. You act as if liberal politicians created welfare in the hopes of keeping blacks from succeeding.

Yes. Haven't I made that clear enough? If they are supporting thugs (who were black and white) singling out and attacking a man because he's black, then they are racists.Umm..no. Attacking someone because of their political allegiances doesn't make one racist.


Well first of all, one of the SEIU thugs was white. Second, you don't think black on black racism is possible? :rolleyes: You don't think the term "Uncle Tom" has anything to do with race? Third, I've already pointed out that Gladney is not a conservative. Just months before the incident he was out selling pro-Obama buttons. Yes one can be racist against ones own race. But again attacking someone because of their political allegiances (if Gladneys story is to be believed) is not racism. And Gladney selling Obama buttons is not proof that he's not a conservative. It seems you have some great knowledge none of these conservative blogs have because most label him a "black conservative".


But you don't actually know that. You certainly don't know if the doctors advised him to stay off his feet for a few days due to a pain and possible back injury. I have a suspicion that when the trial of the thugs occurs, the medical records will explain that wheelchair. But irregardless, the video and witnesses clearly prove that Gladney was thrown to the ground and "being whaled on" by the SEIU thugs. The intent to cause grevious bodily harm was certainly there.Beaten badly enough to be heavily sedated and placed in a wheel chair but didn't have nary a scratch or limp during the confrontation? :boggled:



Whether he is an NAACP member or not (do you have a source to prove he isn't), it looks like the NAACP had no problem with Mr Baruti standing behind an NAACP podium saying those words? There were numerous NAACP officials there and not one got up and tried to stop him. And numerous NAACP officials spoke that day and denounced Gladney and supported the thugs, even though facts already known at the time proved the thugs were lying. And Baruti is a liar too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5qZ9emllSA&feature=player_embedded#! . Just so you know, there is no evidence whatsoever that Gladney was selling the buttons Mr Baruti via McCowans/Molens claimed. The just the word of some proven liars. Also, The person who sold the buttons to Gladney for resale has stated that he did not send him any buttons like those Baruti described.This (http://countusout.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/trial-for-tea-party-kenneth-gladneys-attackers-who-are-not-racists-they-are-terrorists-naacp-gladneys-an-uncle-tom-and-not-black-enough/) conservative blog actually has a nice dissection of the conference. Pretty sensationlist title though lol.


You don't think he is? :rolleyes:Nope.


So Gladney being called the N-word at the beginning of the incident is indicative of nothing? :rolleyes:He claims he called him a negro.

[Neally]

The problem is not that the Tea Party is racist. It's that they are the party of hating Obama. Wrong. The original protest had nothing to do with Obama. It was about a soda tax in NY. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement. Your claim is the equivalent of saying all the problem with all the anti war protests in the past few years is not that they were anti war, but that they were about hating Bush.

Obama happens to be pushing a lot of policies that they don't like, but so do other politicians on the state and federal level.

[thaiboxerken]

Wrong. The original protest had nothing to do with Obama.

Right, but today, and for the last year, it has been about hating Obama. This is why they have not denounced the racists, and racist groups that have allied with them, up until now. If it was about taxes, then they would've stopped protesting because most of them had their taxes lowered by Obama last year.

[Neally]

Right, but today, and for the last year, it has been about hating Obama. This is why they have not denounced the racists, and racist groups that have allied with them, up until now.Wrong again. "Most Tea Party activities in 2010 have been focused on opposing the efforts (supported by the Obama Administration) to enact reforms to health insurance and health care delivery, and on recruiting, nominating, and supporting candidates for upcoming state and national elections" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protests None of the rallies were organized for the purpose of hating Obama.

The TP has in fact denounced racists and kicked them out of leadership positions. "The National Tea Party Federation sent a letter to the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) denouncing racism and requesting that the CBC supply any evidence of the alleged events at the protest on March 20, 2010"

[thaiboxerken]

While the "official" reasons for protesting Obama were about health care, it's pretty obvious that they were really about hating Obama. With the Birthers, and those claiming there will be death panels, it would be intellecutally dishonest to say that the protests were really about health care.

The National Tea Party Federation is only one head of the hydra called the Tea Party. They still have allied with Storm Front and other groups. There is plenty of in-fighting when it comes to racism on this.

[Neally]

While the "official" reasons for protesting Obama were about health care, it's pretty obvious that they were really about hating Obama. With the Birthers, and those claiming there will be death panels, it would be intellecutally dishonest to say that the protests were really about health care.I see. So the unofficial reason for the tea party is about Obama hating. For which you have no evidence. And you claim others are intellectually dishonest.:D Sounds like you belong in the conspiracy section. They also make a lot of claims without evidence.

The National Tea Party Federation is only one head of the hydra called the Tea Party. They still have allied with Storm Front and other groups. Evidence?

[Lurker]

Are there examples from before the last couple of weeks when this started?
This week they were sort of forced to. I don't doubt that prior examples of them condeming racism in their ranks exist.

Well, if you don't doubt then why ask? :) It may be hard to find them now as google is awash with the recent examples.

[thaiboxerken]

I see. So the unofficial reason for the tea party is about Obama hating. For which you have no evidence. And you claim others are intellectually dishonest.:D Sounds like you belong in the conspiracy section. They also make a lot of claims without evidence.

Evidence?

The official reason for the KKK is just to protect against reverse discrimination against white people too. :rolleyes:
There has been plenty of evidence of racism in the tea party, and obama hatred as well. There has been little, to no evidence that the Tea Party is actually about taxes and health care.

As for stormfront. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t588834/

[Lurker]

The official reason for the KKK is just to protect against reverse discrimination against white people too. :rolleyes:
There has been plenty of evidence of racism in the tea party, and obama hatred as well. There has been little, to no evidence that the Tea Party is actually about taxes and health care.

Oh, come on! This is ridiculous. No evidence or no evidence that you agree with? It seems there is a difference.

[Neally]

There has been little, to no evidence that the Tea Party is actually about taxes and health care. Right, except for the fact that the rallies focused on taxes, health care and other economic policies, and none were about hating Obama.

As for stormfront. http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t588834/Really? I mean that's your evidence that the TP is "allied with Storm Front"? Massive, massive FAIL.

[thaiboxerken]

Right, except for the fact that the rallies focused on taxes, health care and other economic policies, and none were about hating Obama.

I'd hardly call that a fact, it's your subjective opinion. The movement has been anti-obama since Obama took office.


Really? I mean that's your evidence that the TP is "allied with Storm Front"? Massive, massive FAIL.

You don't like the evidence, then fine. When the TP announces that there is no room for these people in their movement, then I'll change my mind. By this, I mean most of the TP leaders.

[BeAChooser]

Why not. 1% it is.

I said less than 1%. And we don't know how much less. It could be 0.5% or 0.1%.


Your idea of "considerable diversity" is laughable. Since when was two black faces considerable?

Well that's a random sample of the crowd. If it's 2 faces in 200 people, that 1%. The examples, from the photos you supplied, suggest a percentage higher than that. And even 1% of the total population would represent a large fraction of the total black population. More than voted for Obama. If you can't handle statistics 101, I guess I can't do anything about that except :rolleyes:.


Well considering i'm black I can honestly say I did no such thing.


Then perhaps you are just one of the victims of the democratic party and black leadership over the years … and don't even realize it.

It's not "liberals" that create failure in schools.

Who else should we blame when it's liberals who've been in control of the education system for the past 4 or so decades as it's gone downhill?

It's unstable homes, lack of ambition and living without a clear goal in life.

Far poorer people than the majority of those in the black community in this country are full of ambition, have stable homes and clear goals in life. My grandparents came to this country with NOTHING but the shirt on their backs. Not even speaking any English. Into a country that wasn't always friendly to immigrants. But still managed to become quite successful. Again, you are just pointing to problems that are, in large part, self-made, or fostered by the leadership that the black community has freely chosen for itself the last 4 to 5 decades.

Who do you think created the current 72% (!) out of wedlock birth rate for blacks (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29754561 )? Whites didn't do that, but democrat-pushed welfare and social agendas did. And unfortunately, those same agendas are now starting to affect the white community as well, leading to almost 30 percent out of wedlock birth rates there. Rates which were unheard of before liberal social agendas and welfare entitlement *changed* America. Hate to tell you and Obama, but *change* isn't always the wonderful thing it's cracked up to be.

The #1 predictor for success in life is marriage. This is an uncontestable fact. Yet marriage is the very institution that liberals have been openly attacking for decades. In 1970, near the start of the democrat instigated War On Poverty, only 13% of families in the US were headed by single parents. By 1996, over a quarter of all children in the US lived in single parent homes. Now 40% of all babies are born to unwed mothers. Democrat agendas have bread dependancy, bad decision making, and because of the feelings of entitlement they've fostered, victimhood.

And the black public education system has never succeeded.

You sure? Look at literacy rates: http://www.arthurhu.com/index/literacy.htm . In 1947, 11% of blacks age 14 and over were illiterate (compared with 1.8% of whites). Amongst blacks in the 14-24 age group it was 4.4%. By 1959, illiteracy of blacks had dropped to 7.5% (the rate dropped 0.2% amongst whites). It was down to just 1.2% in the critical 14-24 age group. Blacks had made huge gains in education, long before modern day liberals/socialists entered the picture in 1964. You know the current literacy rate for blacks is? Well this Washington Post article from 2005 might give you a clue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400701.html


Literacy experts and educators say they are stunned by the results of a recent adult literacy assessment, which shows that the reading proficiency of college graduates has declined in the past decade, with no obvious explanation. … snip … Only 41 percent of graduate students tested in 2003 could be classified as "proficient" in prose -- reading and understanding information in short texts -- down 10 percentage points since 1992. Of college graduates, only 31 percent were classified as proficient -- compared with 40 percent in 1992.

The fact is that literacy rates in public school and college age children began dropping after the advent of modern, mostly liberal controlled, public education. Think there might be a connection?

Also I don't believe it's any liberal policies or Democrats that cause blacks to feel victimized.

I guess you never listen to the speeches of democrat leaders and the leaders in the black community. :rolleyes: They are full of statements telling blacks how they've been victimized. Or look at the speeches of the folks who have been running the NAACP. Or Acorn. Or the curriculum in public schools (which more and more promotes the concept of "social justice", especially in schools that are predominantly black).

Rather than just dismiss, folks like you really should listen to what Larry Elder has to say. For example, he points out (http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2010/07/22/naacp_fights_old_battles,_embraces_harmful_left-wing_policies/page/full ) that despite progress towards Reverend Martin Luther King's vision of a color blind society, Julian Bond, who has been Chairman of the NAACP from 1998 to 2010, said "we want [the NAACP] to be a social justice organization … snip … Our mission is to fight racial discrimination and provide social justice … snip … It is popular to say that we are in a post civil rights period, but we don't believe that." As Edler said, by "beast", he "wasn't referring to issues that today threaten the prosperity, safety and integrity of the 'black community' like high urban dropout rates; the opposition to vouchers, which allows the continued near monopoly of underperforming inner-city government schools; the inability of workers to deposit their Social Security contributions into personal savings and investment accounts; teen pregnancy; never-wed fathers and never-wed mothers dependent upon government, the misguided endorsement of race-based college admissions, which lead to a dispropotionately high dropout rate; and crime". By "beast", Bond meant "anti-black racism". :rolleyes:

As Elder noted, "In 1911, Booker T. Washington said: 'There is [a] class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. … There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public." Bond is one of them. Are you? Because, Juniversal, I think that's exactly what it looks like we are now seeing in the NAACP and democratic party.

It's simply a matter of being ultra sensitive to any hint of discrimination or racism thanks to it being so deeply ingrained into the American psyche and culture. Afterall it did shape our society and social heirachy.

You really need to get over it and "move on" if you hope to achieve anything. Wasn't that a phrase democrats chanted not too long ago? "Move on"? :D:

I would say having to agressively fight for equal rights in the face of opposition had a larger role in creating the victim status as opposed to Democrats or Liberals making us believe we were victims.

As Elder notes in his book "Showdown: confronting bias, lies, and the special interests that divide America",


In April 2001, a Cincinnati police officer shot and killed a nineteen-year-ol unarmed black suspect. Several days of riots followed, with graphic images in the media of black thugs beating whites. Black Cincinnati defense attorney Ken Lawson, who specializes in police brutality cases, said the rioting "gave whites a better understanding of what it feels like to be a random target of violence just because of the color of your skin." Oh, if only whites saw blacks' pain!

Predictably, NAACP President Kweisi Mfume jetted to Cincinnati. "I'm here because there's Cincinnatis in every state of the union. Every state of this union!" Bullhorn in hand, Mfume called for the grand jury investigating this matter to act swiftly, "Because without any justice there's not going to be any peace."

That April 2001 shooting brought the total number of blacks killed by Cincinnati cops since 1995 to fifteen. But in six of the cases, guns were drawn on officers; in four, officers were threatened with other instruments; and one case resulted in a Cincinnati officer being killed with two others being injured. The police actions seem, if not entirely defensible, certainly far short of clear-cut police brutality, racial profiling, or "random targeting.

… snip …

In the three months following the riots and during the intense scrutiny and federal investigation focused on the police department, there were seventy-five gunshot victims -- most of them black -- compared to eleven in the same three months the previous year. One analyst said "The city's cops, fearful of being accused of racism, have simply pulled back from aggressive policing. Arrests are down 50 percent since mid-April."

Still, Cincinnati activists chant the victicrat party line. The Reverend Clarence Wallace said, "They have created the criminal culture. We have asked for help in these pockets of the city and so far we have heard nothing. We know it will not be a quick solution, but until some of these communities are strengthened, you are going to have this crime." The reverend also noted that lawlessness would subside when the city's black community is given financial help."

Money? Lack of opportunity? The previous summer, an amusement park just outside the city imported one thousand young Eastern Europeans for summer jobs because two few locals applied. Still following the violence, leaders demanded the creation of thousands of summer jobs to forestall another rampage.

Memo to Reverend Wallace: Which causes the bigger problem for the black community -- The "absence of financial help" or the absence of black fathers?"


Got an answer to that question, Juniversal?


I don't know if it's paticularly realistic to believe the poverty rate would have continued to decline at a steady rate if it wasn't for welfare programs. The structural segregation and poverty the black community suffers alone works as a road block to completely overcoming poverty as a whole.


:rolleyes:

Perhaps the black community should head this message, instead of your victicrat one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhPqmJynQPU&feature=player_embedded#! "Victicrat (Damn it Feels Good to be a Victim)"

Attacking someone because of their political allegiances doesn't make one racist.

But calling them the "N-word" just before you attack them does. In fact, courts of law in the US have ruled that voicing a racial term before an attack is evidence of a racist hate crime. And implying that a black man shouldn't be selling anything that doesn't support Obama is also evidence. Especially, when afterwords, the attackers accuse the person they attacked of being an Uncle Tom. That's most certainly a racist sentiment.

And by the way, what was Sherrod doing when she said


I haven't seen such mean-spirited people as I've seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried resurfaced. Now we endured eight years of the Bushes and we didn't do the stuff these republicans are doing because you have a black President.


other than accusing republicans of being racist merely because of their political allegiance and dislike of socialist health care. Sound like you have a double standard, Juniversal.

And Gladney selling Obama buttons is not proof that he's not a conservative.

But yet you seem to think that his selling Tea Party buttons is proof of just the opposite? Why is one proof and the other not?

It seems you have some great knowledge none of these conservative blogs have because most label him a "black conservative".

Well, in this case, it appears most didn't dig deep enough. Or they'd like him to be conservative because that makes the story seem better. I can only deal with the facts, and the fact is that Gladney was selling Obama buttons at events where Obama spoke just a few months before the Tea Party event. I'd call that evidence that he was a-political and more interested in feeding his family than anything else. Of course, after the beating he received, he might be more inclined to call himself a conservative now or let himself be called a conservative without objecting. :D

Beaten badly enough to be heavily sedated and placed in a wheel chair but didn't have nary a scratch or limp during the confrontation?

Have you never hurt yourself … especially a back injury … and not realized it at the time of the injury? Have you never experienced what a dose of adrenaline will do? Why you're a lucky person.

This conservative blog actually has a nice dissection of the conference.

So you prefer them being "terrorists" to "racists"? Suit yourself.

He claims he called him a negro.

But we already know McCowan is a serial liar. His first claim was that he was walking to his car and Gladney out of the blue assaulted him. Which clearly doesn't fit the facts or statements of eyewitnesses. So why do you believe McCowan just because he now claims he *just* called Gladney a "negro"? And besides, do you think "negro" would be any less racist a term when the video from the NAACP event has the speaker saying


I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called, a Negro, i mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people. In the old days, we call him an Uncle Tom.


with McCowan standing next to him laughing the whole time? :rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, come on! This is ridiculous. No evidence or no evidence that you agree with? It seems there is a difference.

It's hard to say that they are protesting taxes, when their taxes were cut.

[Lurker]

It's hard to say that they are protesting taxes, when their taxes were cut.


Agreed. But they may think the current rate is too high also. Combined with the bailouts that may be enough for them to start protesting spending and taxes.

Now you can argue objectively about the timing and say they should have protested under Bush but other than the facts there is also the media representation of the facts which will effect when people protest.

I think it is incredibly counterproductive from a strategic point of view to claim racism as the intent when moderates will view it as "there go those crazy liberals again always crying 'racism' at teh drop of a hat". It appears that we are attempting to marginalize the Tea Partiers concerns. I would rather address their complaints and debate them head on than attempting to dismiss via 'racism'.

[thaiboxerken]

Tea Party concerns should be marginalized. Those concerns being that Obama is really a secret Muslim, Kenyan, Jew, Socialist that wants to destroy the USA economy and put grandmothers in death panels. Oh, and that he wants to enslave all the white people, first ensuring that all the guns are taken away.

[Neally]

You don't like the evidence, then fine. When the TP announces that there is no room for these people in their movement, then I'll change my mind. By this, I mean most of the TP leaders.Neither the Storm Front people nor the TP claim that the Storm Front is "in" the TP movement, therefore there is nothing to announce. Your claim that the TP is allied with Storm Front is laughably false, and you are wrong yet again.

[bynmdsue]

It's hard to say that they are protesting taxes, when their taxes were cut.

How much were their taxes cut by?Which taxes?For how long?Is it permanent?

[Neally]

Tea Party concerns should be marginalized. Those concerns being that Obama is really a secret Muslim, Kenyan, Jew, Socialist that wants to destroy the USA economy and put grandmothers in death panels. Oh, and that he wants to enslave all the white people, first ensuring that all the guns are taken away.Your statements go beyond ridiculously stupid, therefore I must assume you are deliberately lying.

[thaiboxerken]

How much were their taxes cut by?Which taxes?For how long?Is it permanent?

Which taxes are they protesting? How long are those protested taxes to be in effect? Are those protested taxes permanent?

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.examiner.com/x-5697-Grassroots-Politics-Examiner~y2009m4d9-White-Nationalists-Movement-ready-for-Tea-Party-will-next-Timothy-McVeigh-be-there

[bynmdsue]

Which taxes are they protesting? How long are those protested taxes to be in effect? Are those protested taxes permanent?

Hey man,you said their taxes had been cut.I'm just trying to learn something here.

[thaiboxerken]

Hey man,you said their taxes had been cut.I'm just trying to learn something here.

Then learn something. Taxes were cut by Obama in 2009 as part of the economic stimulus package.

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

[bynmdsue]

Then learn something. Taxes were cut by Obama in 2009 as part of the economic stimulus package.

http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/

Thank you.How does BO plan to pay for all the new spending if he's cutting taxes so much?

[GrouchoMarxist]

Thank you.How does BO plan to pay for all the new spending if he's cutting taxes so much?

a nation-wide mirage sale?

[BeAChooser]

How does BO plan to pay for all the new spending if he's cutting taxes so much?

Socialist economics 101. :D

[BeAChooser]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1CLPhz0DHM&feature=player_embedded#! "Tea Party Racism??"

[GrouchoMarxist]

Thank you.How does BO plan to pay for all the new spending if he's cutting taxes so much?

From each according to his abilities in my pajamas?
Maybe we'll never know.

[Juniversal]

I said less than 1%. And we don't know how much less. It could be 0.5% or 0.1%.Alright. Less then 1% it is. ;)


Well that's a random sample of the crowd. If it's 2 faces in 200 people, that 1%. The examples, from the photos you supplied, suggest a percentage higher than that. And even 1% of the total population would represent a large fraction of the total black population. More than voted for Obama. If you can't handle statistics 101, I guess I can't do anything about that except :rolleyes:.Your logic doesn't follow. 1% of the entire black population is 400,000 (according to you, more black people than voted for Obama). So you attempt to correlate that 1% with the 1% that belongs to the tea party demographic? 1% of tea partiers might be black. But 1% of blacks aren't tea partiers. Your logic fails.


Who else should we blame when it's liberals who've been in control of the education system for the past 4 or so decades as it's gone downhill?You have no conception of social dynamics. If over several generations, immigrants to this country performed poorly relative to the broader population would that be a testament to the "liberal failure" or would the failure be atrributal to the immigrant culture or social standing (poverty and the like)?


Far poorer people than the majority of those in the black community in this country are full of ambition, have stable homes and clear goals in life. My grandparents came to this country with NOTHING but the shirt on their backs. Not even speaking any English. Into a country that wasn't always friendly to immigrants. But still managed to become quite successful. Again, you are just pointing to problems that are, in large part, self-made, or fostered by the leadership that the black community has freely chosen for itself the last 4 to 5 decades."Came to this country". Willingly. Yes. There seems to be a certain ambition that comes with being a willing immigrant to a foreign country. Unfortunately it seems the ambition in the black community has been limited to the entertainment industries where blacks historically have had some success.

It seems there's certain "roles"/niches people gravitate towards as immigrants. Stereotypically Asians and nail salons, Arabs/East Indians commonly own convienence stores and I often see Africans selling clothing or other good to make there way. Oddly enough the niche black americans seem to have found is either related the black market or the entertainment industry (Rapper, singer, athlete, actor ect.)... Sadly it seems many of our youths ambitions don't rise above those simple niches.


Who do you think created the current 72% (!) out of wedlock birth rate for blacks (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29754561 )? Whites didn't do that, but democrat-pushed welfare and social agendas did. And unfortunately, those same agendas are now starting to affect the white community as well, leading to almost 30 percent out of wedlock birth rates there. Rates which were unheard of before liberal social agendas and welfare entitlement *changed* America. Hate to tell you and Obama, but *change* isn't always the wonderful thing it's cracked up to be.

The #1 predictor for success in life is marriage. This is an uncontestable fact. Yet marriage is the very institution that liberals have been openly attacking for decades. In 1970, near the start of the democrat instigated War On Poverty, only 13% of families in the US were headed by single parents. By 1996, over a quarter of all children in the US lived in single parent homes. Now 40% of all babies are born to unwed mothers. Democrat agendas have bread dependancy, bad decision making, and because of the feelings of entitlement they've fostered, victimhood.I'd also attribute the high rate of illegitamcy simply to poor unstable homes. Financial instability doesn't lend itself to stability in relationships or otherwise.


You sure? Look at literacy rates: http://www.arthurhu.com/index/literacy.htm . In 1947, 11% of blacks age 14 and over were illiterate (compared with 1.8% of whites). Amongst blacks in the 14-24 age group it was 4.4%. By 1959, illiteracy of blacks had dropped to 7.5% (the rate dropped 0.2% amongst whites). It was down to just 1.2% in the critical 14-24 age group. Blacks had made huge gains in education, long before modern day liberals/socialists entered the picture in 1964. You know the current literacy rate for blacks is? Well this Washington Post article from 2005 might give you a clue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/24/AR2005122400701.html

The fact is that literacy rates in public school and college age children began dropping after the advent of modern, mostly liberal controlled, public education. Think there might be a connection?What exactly is your objection to the Civil Rights Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)? Did 1964 (the year legal segregation was ended) signify the "liberal takeover"? If that's the case then conservatives clearly weren't doing us ANY good prior to 1964. ;) And an arbitrary statistic such as inceasing literacy rates alone is not enough to deem black education "successfull".


I guess you never listen to the speeches of democrat leaders and the leaders in the black community. :rolleyes: They are full of statements telling blacks how they've been victimized. Or look at the speeches of the folks who have been running the NAACP. Or Acorn. Or the curriculum in public schools (which more and more promotes the concept of "social justice", especially in schools that are predominantly black).Black leaders don't need to "tell" anyone how they feel. Generally speaking they are a reflection of how a portion of the community feels.


Rather than just dismiss, folks like you really should listen to what Larry Elder has to say. For example, he points out (http://townhall.com/columnists/LarryElder/2010/07/22/naacp_fights_old_battles,_embraces_harmful_left-wing_policies/page/full ) that despite progress towards Reverend Martin Luther King's vision of a color blind society, Julian Bond, who has been Chairman of the NAACP from 1998 to 2010, said "we want [the NAACP] to be a social justice organization … snip … Our mission is to fight racial discrimination and provide social justice … snip … It is popular to say that we are in a post civil rights period, but we don't believe that." As Edler said, by "beast", he "wasn't referring to issues that today threaten the prosperity, safety and integrity of the 'black community' like high urban dropout rates; the opposition to vouchers, which allows the continued near monopoly of underperforming inner-city government schools; the inability of workers to deposit their Social Security contributions into personal savings and investment accounts; teen pregnancy; never-wed fathers and never-wed mothers dependent upon government, the misguided endorsement of race-based college admissions, which lead to a dispropotionately high dropout rate; and crime". By "beast", Bond meant "anti-black racism". :rolleyes:

As I said, I can't stand Larry Elder. Nuff said. And Julian Bond is an intelligent man. He certainly has oppinions beyond those of racism. He considers racism to be a beast and he no doubt greatly abhors those issues you mentioned that plague the black community. Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f5MZKf6Uu4) a great interview with him and Geoffery Canada who created the Harlem Childrens zone which has created great strides in educational attainment for the students involved in the program.


You really need to get over it and "move on" if you hope to achieve anything. Wasn't that a phrase democrats chanted not too long ago? "Move on"? :D::confused: You're directing that at me as if i'm the one that's "ultra sensitive discrimination or racism". I'm not. I agree with you. Some folks indeed need to stop seeing racism in anything.


As Elder notes in his book "Showdown: confronting bias, lies, and the special interests that divide America",


Got an answer to that question, Juniversal?I assume the question you're refering to is the final sentence? I'd say both are significant problems that can create a dominoe effect.


But calling them the "N-word" just before you attack them does. In fact, courts of law in the US have ruled that voicing a racial term before an attack is evidence of a racist hate crime. And implying that a black man shouldn't be selling anything that doesn't support Obama is also evidence. Especially, when afterwords, the attackers accuse the person they attacked of being an Uncle Tom. That's most certainly a racist sentiment.Regardless if he asked "what kind of negro are you?" or "what kind of :rule10 are you, it's not really the same as calling somebody a "n-bomb". McCowen Racist against black conservatives? I think not. Intolerant of black conservatives? Quite possible.


But yet you seem to think that his selling Tea Party buttons is proof of just the opposite? Why is one proof and the other not?Until proven otherwise i'll take the label of "black conservative" that's been given to him by the Conservative blogs as greater evidence. ;)


Have you never hurt yourself … especially a back injury … and not realized it at the time of the injury? Have you never experienced what a dose of adrenaline will do? Why you're a lucky person.In this Fox News interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgjMF3y1ytQ) Gladney said he was "bruised". Never have I known a bruise to warrant heavy sedation and a wheel chair. :p


But we already know McCowan is a serial liar. His first claim was that he was walking to his car and Gladney out of the blue assaulted him. Which clearly doesn't fit the facts or statements of eyewitnesses. So why do you believe McCowan just because he now claims he *just* called Gladney a "negro"? And besides, do you think "negro" would be any less racist a term when the video from the NAACP event has the speaker saying


with McCowan standing next to him laughing the whole time? :rolleyes:Regardless of which word he used, In the context he used it in, it's not "racist" by a long shot. Also Uncle tom is no more a racist term then red neck. Do you claim when someone white calls another white person a red neck that they're racist?

[Juniversal]

Thank you.How does BO plan to pay for all the new spending if he's cutting taxes so much?If I recall correctly there was a plan to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more a year. How much debt this will pay, I don't know. But that's one of the short term methods.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Socialist economics 101. :DIs that how Bush dealt with deficit spending during his administration?

[Lurker]

Tea Party concerns should be marginalized. Those concerns being that Obama is really a secret Muslim, Kenyan, Jew, Socialist that wants to destroy the USA economy and put grandmothers in death panels. Oh, and that he wants to enslave all the white people, first ensuring that all the guns are taken away.

It does not appear that the items you delineated above are endemic in tea party talks. By characterizing them as such, you are making them the victim and probably making the populace more sympathetic to their cause. If those issues come up in debate with them then go ahead and debate them, but don't assume that those are the core causes of the party. You only help them by doing so.

[Lurker]

Thank you.How does BO plan to pay for all the new spending if he's cutting taxes so much?

But according to Republican philosophy, tax cuts pay for themselves by increasing revenue. Are you saying you don't believe that canard principle anymore?

[bynmdsue]

Never said I believed it in the first place,only trying to understand the positions.

I'm not trying to run a game down on anyone,or try to trip up someone in their rhetoric.

[Lurker]

Never said I believed it in the first place,only trying to understand the positions.

I'm not trying to run a game down on anyone,or try to trip up someone in their rhetoric.

Fair enough. I think Obama sees a lot of the spending he is doing now as a one time spend due to the difficult economic situation we are in. So he is willing to have deficit spending here. I am hoping that as the economy improves, he will start to cut spending and/or raise taxes.

Obama did allude to possible spending cuts next year. He may not be able to keep those plans if the economy does not improve. We'll see.

[BeAChooser]

Your logic doesn't follow. 1% of the entire black population is 400,000 (according to you, more black people than voted for Obama).

I'm sorry, I misspoke. I meant to write more than *did not vote for Obama*, as I initially suggested in post #354 to you when you first yawned. And I'm talking in terms of percentages. Blacks comprise about 13% of the US population, of which about 30% are under 18 (voting age). So if just 1% percent of the Tea Party attendees are black (and mind, CNN and Gallup indicated the percentage is between 2% and 6%), then that is equivalent to about 10% of voting age blacks. And that is a higher percentage by far than the percent who did not vote for Obama in the last election (5%). This means that the Tea Party is drawing about as many blacks as one could possibly expect it to draw, given the black communities blind allegiance to Obama and the democratic party. As I said earlier, you can't squeeze water out of a dry sponge.


Quote:
Who else should we blame when it's liberals who've been in control of the education system for the past 4 or so decades as it's gone downhill?

You have no conception of social dynamics. If over several generations, immigrants to this country performed poorly relative to the broader population would that be a testament to the "liberal failure" or would the failure be atrributal to the immigrant culture or social standing (poverty and the like)?

LOL! New immigrants aren't the problem here. Not when 50% of high school students in the largest 50 public school districts in the country aren't graduating high school on time (if at all). And the percentage of non-graduates amongst the non-immigrant black population is much, much higher than that. The democrat controlled public education system has failed your race, Juniversal. And you are apparently too blind to see it.

Also arguing against your spin is the fact that private education is able to do a much better job with the same raw student material. Here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/urbanissues/bg1128.cfm


In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation analyzed big-city high schools to determine how education for low income minority youth could be improved. It looked at 13 public, private, and Catholic high schools in New York City that attracted minority and disadvantaged youth. Of the Catholic school students in these schools, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic. The study found that:

- The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more [than] 50 percent of their senior class;

- Over 66 percent of the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

- 85 percent of the Catholic high school students took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), compared with just 33 percent of the public high school students;

- The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642; and

- 60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.


And I can go on all day citing sources like that.

"Came to this country". Willingly.

It's well past time you got over that. Don't you see that this victicrat attitude is what's holding the black community back? It's made blacks latch on to more than half a century of empty promises from the socialist, democratic party. It's made you succeptible to the racebaiters and racemongers who disguise themselves as ministers and the like. You've been had, friend. Not just by slave owners over a hundred and fifty years ago (which means, by the way, that none of you here now were brought into this country unwillingly) but by a new class of slave owners, who call themselves liberals and have kept you relatively poor and uneducated just to insure your vote.

Besides, had your great great grandparents not been brought to this country, many of your descendants would now still be living in squalor and slavery at the hands of your own race. And I think the more than ten trillion dollars spent on the WOP over the last 50 years is more than enough of a helping hand. It's time to stand on your own two feet and stop being whining victigrats and government dependents. Your kids have just as much chance to achieve as mine … IF you use the opportunities the freedoms and economic system of this country offer you and stop making bad decisions. As Larry Elder advises … stop attributing every bad thing that happens to you to racism or poverty and start focusing on the real problems black people face.

I'd also attribute the high rate of illegitamcy simply to poor unstable homes. Financial instability doesn't lend itself to stability in relationships or otherwise.

Which came first? Unstable homes or illegitimacy? I think you have it completely backwards. In 1970, there was a memo sent to President Johnson by not yet democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan titled "The Negro Family: A Case for National Action." In it, he made the argument (that liberals considered racist) that the rising number of black children born outside of wedlock threatened the stability of the black community. That implies there was stability at some point and that something happened to threaten it. Indeed, the percentage of black children born out of wedlock prior to the War On Poverty in 1960 was about 22%. By 1970 it was at 25%. It climbed more in 10 years than it had in the previous 20 years. And as the WOP programs expanded, it exploded. By mid 1970, nearly half of black kids were illegitimate. By 1990, 64% were born out of wedlock. And now that statistic is over 70%. Also, in the late 60's about 26% of black pregnant teenagers got married before birth. By the late 1970's only 8% did. What led to this dramatic change at a time when effective birth control methods became available? Liberal inspired government welfare, the liberal inspired attack on the institution of marriage and the culture the black community adopted.

Being poor does not make you have a child out of wedlock. Being poor doesn't by itself make a home unstable. Neither does being uneducated, for that matter. My grandparents were both poor and relatively uneducated, yet their kids had a stable married home to grow up in. Jesse Jackson, with all his money and education (and self righteousness), still had a child out of wedlock in an affair (in fact, in an unbelievable display of hypocrisy, he visited the Whitehouse to counsel Clinton over his affair with Monica … and brought along his mistress).

My own parents took three things from their parent's house. And none of them was a stack of money (that was still in short supply after only a generation in the country and there was NO government assistance).

One was an education. And my grandparents felt so strongly about education that they worked at backbreaking labor from sunrise to sunset so their kids could get that education. They made them study. They made them read. They felt so strongly about it that they sacrificed part of their own culture for it … insisting that their kids only speak English … even at home. No ebonics (or the equivalent) allowed in their home.

The second thing my parents took away from their parents was a good moral code. Knowing right and wrong. Knowing that you don't have babies you can't afford. Knowing that you don't expect others to pay for your own mistakes (you are NOT entitled to anything but what specifically is identified in the Constitution). The rest depends on hard work.

And with that in mind, they taught them a good work ethic. And self-sufficiency. That if you can't afford something now, don't buy it. Don't expect someone else to buy it for you. You do without and save until you can afford it. You NEVER get in debt over your head. You never use a credit card for anything other than just the convenience of paying a bill.

These are lessons that democrats have in large part forgotten.

And a growing number of republicans (although hopefully that is changing).


What exactly is your objection to the Civil Rights Act?


You aren't listening. I have no objection to the Civil Rights Act. It was a very good thing. It was about ending segregation. About, as JFK who introduced it, said "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote." There was/is nothing wrong with that.

What the Civil Rights Act doesn't mention is WELFARE. That's the legislation I'm saying started America and the black community down the road to where we now find ourselves. Johnson's War on Poverty. I object to the misguided Economic Opportunity Act that he pushed into law and the 10 trillion dollar (PLUS) boondoggle it started (and that's doesn't include the trillions that Obama has now added to it).

Black leaders don't need to "tell" anyone how they feel. Generally speaking they are a reflection of how a portion of the community feels.

Again, you confuse the chicken and the egg. You really believe that black leaders are only a reflection of the black community and not trying to convince the black community of anything? Is gullible your middle name?

As I said, I can't stand Larry Elder. Nuff said.

I can see it's a waste of time trying to talk sense (and common sense) to you. Oh well.

And Julian Bond is an intelligent man.

Intelligence doesn't keep him from being a racebaiter and a racemonger … or from using the black community in the way Booker T Washington warned.

Harlem Childrens zone which has created great strides in educational attainment for the students involved in the program.

LOL! Funny that you should mention a private/charter school, when the democratic party has fought tooth and nail against private/charter schools for years (and even now is only supporting charter schools because they think they can sneak unions into them). But maybe you mention HCZ because it's not only trying to educate but provide all manner of other social and community services that don't directly relate to education. And in that, it may be judged a failure (http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/07/broader-bolder-but-not-better/ ). Even so, that hasn't stopped Obama from seeking hundreds of millions (billions?) in public money to create these schools in 20 cities. Perhaps because the model includes those social and community services, and he thinks that might be used to indoctrinate students in the "social justice" mime he and his socialist associates promote. Afterall, in seeking interns for their TRUCE program, I notice that HCZ specifically stated that they were looking for people with a "strong committment to social justice."

Maybe what we need to do instead is figure out why the HCZ schools work compared to public schools and fix the public schools? Is it the fact that HCZ schools maintain student discipline whereas public schools don't? Is it the fact that HCZ students spend 50% more time in school than regular public school kids? Is it the fact that HCZ schools seem to teach middle class values rather than tear them down like so many public schools do? Is it the fact that it only enrolls 1% "limited English proficient" students? But can we really afford schools where the staff to child ratio is 8 to 1?

I'd say both are significant problems that can create a dominoe effect.

So you are claiming they are equally important problems … because that was the question? And if that's true, you are wrong. They aren't equal.

Regardless if he asked "what kind of negro are you?" or "what kind of are you, it's not really the same as calling somebody a "n-bomb".

So subtle racism is ok with you?

Until proven otherwise i'll take the label of "black conservative" that's been given to him by the Conservative blogs as greater evidence.

So will you take the labels they assign as evidence of other things too? :D

In the context he used it in, it's not "racist" by a long shot.

:rolleyes: When has context ever mattered to liberals accusing others of being racists?

Also Uncle tom is no more a racist term then red neck. Do you claim when someone white calls another white person a red neck that they're racist?

The term red neck has nothing to do with race. Its origin stems from people getting a red neck from laboring outside in the sun … due to being poor. Whereas the N-word specifically concerns race. And when McCowan said "what kind of a …" are you, he was demeaning the man's racial characteristics (saying he wasn't black enough), not his economic status.

[bynmdsue]

I gotta go with "Uncle Tom" as being very racist as it implies being a race-traitor as opposed to red-neck which is more just poor and stupid.

Is there a way to use "Uncle Tom" without it being"This fella is trying to appease The Man by not being true to his Black self"?

[Lurker]

LOL! New immigrants aren't the problem here. Not when 50% of high school students in the largest 50 public school districts in the country aren't graduating high school on time (if at all). And the percentage of non-graduates amongst the non-immigrant black population is much, much higher than that. The democrat controlled public education system has failed your race, Juniversal. And you are apparently too blind to see it.

do you have any evidence of this? I would think that we should see higher rates of high school graduation for blacks in states that have higher Republican control over local school boards and state politicians. So, do we have the graduation rates for blacks in states like Texas versus a state like Minnesota? I think that might demonstrate your point, BAC.

Oh, here we go. Here is some data:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm

Lowest grad rate for African-Americans: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Georgia, and Tennessee.

Highest grad rate for African-American: West Virginia, Massachusetts, Arkansas, and New Jersey.

Hmm, I am not seeing any red state/blue state trend there. Kind of blows your theory out of the water, eh?

[BeAChooser]

do you have any evidence of this? I would think that we should see higher rates of high school graduation for blacks in states that have higher Republican control over local school boards and state politicians.

First, you make the mistake of assuming that local school boards and state politicians have more impact on education than the federal level. I'm not convinced because of the way federal government funding works. The feds have all sorts of rules (guidelines) that states and localities have to abide by to receive that funding. Plus, major elements of the curriculum are set at the national level by national organizations of one form or another. For example, the NEA which is democrat controlled has considerable influence. So does the AERA which is highly liberal. Also, you need to consider the effect of universities on public schools because universities train the teachers and teachers have a significant impact on the message that gets relayed to students. Teachers are predominantly liberal in part because the colleges are predominantly liberal.

Second, you make the mistake of thinking the red/blue labels at the state level mean much at the local level. Perhaps they don't. For example, Mississippi, is red, but the mayor of Jackson appoints the school board and he is a democrat. You need to ask yourself what fraction of public school boards are conservative. You might be surprised. democrats dominate school boards in general, in part because republicans foolishly let them control school boards for so long thinking they weren't that important.

So, do we have the graduation rates for blacks in states like Texas versus a state like Minnesota?

Actually, Texas does pretty good compared to other states when it comes to graduation rates:

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/research/pdfs/NGA_compact_rate_policy_brief.pdf


The National Governors Association (NGA) "Compact Rate" is a four-year, adjusted cohort graduation rate used to determine the percentage of on-time high school graduates (those receiving diplomas) from a given four-year student cohort. It is widely considered a high-quality, practical graduation rate capable of improving consistency and accuracy among statewide reporting systems. The NGA has been the principal player supporting the ongoing development and implementation of the Compact Rate, and has produced two reports detailing its efforts (2009, 2005).

… snip …

Four-year graduation rates for 2007-08 were found for 15 of the 20 states reported by NGA as using the Compact Rate. Additionally, although reported to begin using the Compact Rate in 2008-09, Iowa used it a year earlier than expected and is therefore included in the table. In 2007-08, the overall graduation rate for Texas public school students was 79.1 percent. This was the fourth highest rate among the 16 states reported above. Across these states, Texas had the second highest graduation rate for White students (88.8%) and the fourth highest rates for African American (71.8%) and Hispanic students (70.8%).


The states they compared were Iowa, Vermont, Virginia, Texas, Indiana, Michigan, Florida, Rhode Island, South Carolina, North Dakota, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Arkansas, New York and New Mexico. If you look at ranking of black graduation rates in that list, you see that Texas beat all but 2 of the 6 states identified as blue states in the last election.

By the way, you've also shot yourself in the foot with the study you linked because it says that only 56% of black students graduate nation-wide on average. Clearly, at 71.8%, Texas is doing quite well in comparison. Also, 56% is nothing to boast about when private/charter schools have been taking blacks from the same populations and graduating 80-90%. :D

By the way, take a look at the 25 worst performing public schools in the country: http://www.walletpop.com/mortgages/worst-performing-public-schools/ . Here are the cities/states they are in along with the party that appears to have controlled that city for last 30 years or so:

D - Milwaukee, Wis.
D - Chicago Ill.
D - Philadelphia, Pa
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Chicago, Ill.
R (slight edge) Columbus, Oh
R? - Highland Park, Mich
D - Chicago, Ill
R - Greenville, SC
Indian reservation - Sacaton Ariz
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Florence, SC
D - Charleston, SC
D - Poughkeepsie, NY
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
Indian reservation - St Francis, SD
D - Chicago, Ill
D - North Charleston, SC
D - Milwaukee, Wis
D - Milwaukee, Wis
Aiken, SC
D - East St Louis, Ill.

Looks to me like democrats are in control of most of those. :D

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Socialist economics 101. :D

Really? Because cutting taxes while either increasing spending or simply not cutting spending seems to be a pretty conservative move as far as history is concerned. :rolleyes: Either that or every Republican president since Reagan is a god damn commie. Then again, as Lurker pointed out, the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves by increasing revenue is a central belief of supply-side economics.

[BeAChooser]

Did noone in the Obama administration and Obama DOJ bother to ask this question?

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/


If there are only 39,697 African-American farmers grand total in the entire country, then how can over 86,000 of them claim discrimination at the hands of the USDA? Where did the other 46,303 come from?


Or perhaps they just didn't care because this wasn't about discrimination against farmers in the first place ... but reparations. :confused:

[BeAChooser]

Did you folks see the latest video of Sherrod's husband Charlie? It's dated January 2010 (it mentions the settlement to New Communities so it must be recent).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_tHu4vdS8&feature=player_embedded


Finally we must stop the white man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black. And we must not be afraid to turn a black out who votes against our interests.


He looks like he still harbors some resentment towards whites. And any blacks who don't agree with his view of things. Given the apparent passion of those feelings, are Shirley's defenders sure that she doesn't still share those same feelings even now? Maybe that's why she accused republicans of being racist for not supporting Obama's health care bill? You think?

And who is actually getting the $13 million he spoke of? New Communities has been defunct for more than 20 years. Just curious.

The sad thing is that Charles Sherrod really was an important civil rights figure in the early 60s before becoming disenchanted with the democratic party (apparently because they were unwilling to give blacks more representation in the party leadership) and went off to become a minister and start New Communities. Unfortunately, it looks like he chose a model for that venture based more on communism than capitalism. And that might have as much to do with it's failure as any drought or racism.

[Juniversal]

I'm sorry, I misspoke. I meant to write more than *did not vote for Obama*, as I initially suggested in post #354 to you when you first yawned. And I'm talking in terms of percentages. Blacks comprise about 13% of the US population, of which about 30% are under 18 (voting age). So if just 1% percent of the Tea Party attendees are black (and mind, CNN and Gallup indicated the percentage is between 2% and 6%), then that is equivalent to about 10% of voting age blacks. And that is a higher percentage by far than the percent who did not vote for Obama in the last election (5%). This means that the Tea Party is drawing about as many blacks as one could possibly expect it to draw, given the black communities blind allegiance to Obama and the democratic party. As I said earlier, you can't squeeze water out of a dry sponge.Can't argue with that and thank you for owning up to your mistake. ;)


LOL! New immigrants aren't the problem here. Not when 50% of high school students in the largest 50 public school districts in the country aren't graduating high school on time (if at all). And the percentage of non-graduates amongst the non-immigrant black population is much, much higher than that. The democrat controlled public education system has failed your race, Juniversal. And you are apparently too blind to see it.

Also arguing against your spin is the fact that private education is able to do a much better job with the same raw student material. Here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/urbanissues/bg1128.cfm



And I can go on all day citing sources like that.So the issue is public education vs. private education it seems. Not Liberal vs. Conservative. Or do actually believe liberals hate private schools? Are you implying private schools are somehow a conservative institution and public schools a liberal one? Do you believe conservatives bare no blame in the current status of public education?


It's well past time you got over that. Don't you see that this victicrat attitude is what's holding the black community back? It's made blacks latch on to more than half a century of empty promises from the socialist, democratic party. It's made you succeptible to the racebaiters and racemongers who disguise themselves as ministers and the like. You've been had, friend. Not just by slave owners over a hundred and fifty years ago (which means, by the way, that none of you here now were brought into this country unwillingly) but by a new class of slave owners, who call themselves liberals and have kept you relatively poor and uneducated just to insure your vote.

Besides, had your great great grandparents not been brought to this country, many of your descendants would now still be living in squalor and slavery at the hands of your own race. And I think the more than ten trillion dollars spent on the WOP over the last 50 years is more than enough of a helping hand.Again you seem confused about my stance. I'm not blaming anyone for slavery or using it as an excuse for any plight i've suffered. My point was simply that the niche black people have filled seems to be endemic to our origins in this country. I'm explaining why I believe the disease exist. Not attacking anyone for its existence.


It's time to stand on your own two feet and stop being whining victigrats and government dependents. Your kids have just as much chance to achieve as mine … IF you use the opportunities the freedoms and economic system of this country offer you and stop making bad decisions. As Larry Elder advises … stop attributing every bad thing that happens to you to racism or poverty and start focusing on the real problems black people face.You're great at making baseless assumptions. Hate to break it to you but my family has never been on welfare (not to say nobody in my extended family hasn't because that's certainly not the case) and we definately struggled. Even if we were on welfare it would be out of neccesity.


Which came first? Unstable homes or illegitimacy? I think you have it completely backwards. In 1970, there was a memo sent to President Johnson by not yet democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan titled "The Negro Family: A Case for National Action." In it, he made the argument (that liberals considered racist) that the rising number of black children born outside of wedlock threatened the stability of the black community. That implies there was stability at some point and that something happened to threaten it. Indeed, the percentage of black children born out of wedlock prior to the War On Poverty in 1960 was about 22%. By 1970 it was at 25%. It climbed more in 10 years than it had in the previous 20 years. And as the WOP programs expanded, it exploded. By mid 1970, nearly half of black kids were illegitimate. By 1990, 64% were born out of wedlock. And now that statistic is over 70%. Also, in the late 60's about 26% of black pregnant teenagers got married before birth. By the late 1970's only 8% did. What led to this dramatic change at a time when effective birth control methods became available? Liberal inspired government welfare, the liberal inspired attack on the institution of marriage and the culture the black community adopted.How many blacks were on welfare during the 1970's? Were 92% of blacks accounted for in the Welfare system that would explain the 8% that were married before giving birth during the late 1970's? Were the other 92% that remained unmarried on welfare? Seems you're commiting the causation/correlation fallacy. And what is this liberal attack on marriage you speak of? I don't recall anyone condemning marriage or demonizing liberals encouraging births out of wed lock.

Let me guess. Your logic is as follows....welfare = the poor make reckless decisions thanks to the money welfare provides = sex without regards to financial burden = kids born out of wedlock=attack on marriage. That sound about right?


Being poor does not make you have a child out of wedlock. Being poor doesn't by itself make a home unstable. Neither does being uneducated, for that matter. My grandparents were both poor and relatively uneducated, yet their kids had a stable married home to grow up in. Jesse Jackson, with all his money and education (and self righteousness), still had a child out of wedlock in an affair (in fact, in an unbelievable display of hypocrisy, he visited the Whitehouse to counsel Clinton over his affair with Monica … and brought along his mistress).I'll totally agree that being poor doesn't make one have a child out of wedlock and that Jesse Jackson is a hypocrite. Nothing controversial there. But I also don't believe marriage is some magic solution. If a immature 16 year old girl has an unplanned pregnancy with an equally immature boy than i'd say marriage is not a reasonable solution. And in many cases these days it is immature 16 year olds having kids with immature 16 year olds.


My own parents took three things from their parent's house. And none of them was a stack of money (that was still in short supply after only a generation in the country and there was NO government assistance).

One was an education. And my grandparents felt so strongly about education that they worked at backbreaking labor from sunrise to sunset so their kids could get that education. They made them study. They made them read. They felt so strongly about it that they sacrificed part of their own culture for it … insisting that their kids only speak English … even at home. No ebonics (or the equivalent) allowed in their home.

The second thing my parents took away from their parents was a good moral code. Knowing right and wrong. Knowing that you don't have babies you can't afford. Knowing that you don't expect others to pay for your own mistakes (you are NOT entitled to anything but what specifically is identified in the Constitution). The rest depends on hard work.

And with that in mind, they taught them a good work ethic. And self-sufficiency. That if you can't afford something now, don't buy it. Don't expect someone else to buy it for you. You do without and save until you can afford it. You NEVER get in debt over your head. You never use a credit card for anything other than just the convenience of paying a bill.

These are lessons that democrats have in large part forgotten.

And a growing number of republicans (although hopefully that is changing).Do your grandparents want a cookie? ;)


You really believe that black leaders are only a reflection of the black community and not trying to convince the black community of anything?In many cases? Yes.


I can see it's a waste of time trying to talk sense (and common sense) to you. Oh well.No not at all. I have common sense. I just don't need Larry Elder to preach and condascend to me about things i'm fully aware of.


Intelligence doesn't keep him from being a racebaiter and a racemonger … or from using the black community in the way Booker T Washington warned.Bond is not a "racemonger" ala Jesse Jackson or Sharpton. Simply a civil rights activist (an activist for gay rights as well which I think is great) who's activism extends beyond the civil rights movement era. If acknowledging race or racism makes one a race monger then your boy Larry Elder is a race monger as well.


LOL! Funny that you should mention a private/charter school, when the democratic party has fought tooth and nail against private/charter schools for years (and even now is only supporting charter schools because they think they can sneak unions into them). But maybe you mention HCZ because it's not only trying to educate but provide all manner of other social and community services that don't directly relate to education. And in that, it may be judged a failure (http://www.joannejacobs.com/2010/07/broader-bolder-but-not-better/ ). Even so, that hasn't stopped Obama from seeking hundreds of millions (billions?) in public money to create these schools in 20 cities. Perhaps because the model includes those social and community services, and he thinks that might be used to indoctrinate students in the "social justice" mime he and his socialist associates promote. Afterall, in seeking interns for their TRUCE program, I notice that HCZ specifically stated that they were looking for people with a "strong committment to social justice." Somebody's been watching Glenn Beck. :p Social justice...boogity boogity boo!! Never have I seen anyone try to apply a negative connotation to social justice until Beck. Rediculous.

Also I would think you would enthusiastic about Obama attempting to recreate the results of the program since you're so adamant at the qaulity of private school education vs. public school education.


Maybe what we need to do instead is figure out why the HCZ schools work compared to public schools and fix the public schools? Is it the fact that HCZ schools maintain student discipline whereas public schools don't? Is it the fact that HCZ students spend 50% more time in school than regular public school kids? Is it the fact that HCZ schools seem to teach middle class values rather than tear them down like so many public schools do? Is it the fact that it only enrolls 1% "limited English proficient" students? But can we really afford schools where the staff to child ratio is 8 to 1?I don't know. But whatever it is it seems to be working.


So will you take the labels they assign as evidence of other things too? :DIn your dreams. ;)


The term red neck has nothing to do with race. Its origin stems from people getting a red neck from laboring outside in the sun … due to being poor. Whereas the N-word specifically concerns race. And when McCowan said "what kind of a …" are you, he was demeaning the man's racial characteristics (saying he wasn't black enough), not his economic status.I don't care about the origins of the word. I'm talking about the connotation.

[Juniversal]

Did you folks see the latest video of Sherrod's husband Charlie? It's dated January 2010 (it mentions the settlement to New Communities so it must be recent).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD_tHu4vdS8&feature=player_embedded



He looks like he still harbors some resentment towards whites. And any blacks who don't agree with his view of things. Given the apparent passion of those feelings, are Shirley's defenders sure that she doesn't still share those same feelings even now? Maybe that's why she accused republicans of being racist for not supporting Obama's health care bill? You think?

And who is actually getting the $13 million he spoke of? New Communities has been defunct for more than 20 years. Just curious.

The sad thing is that Charles Sherrod really was an important civil rights figure in the early 60s before becoming disenchanted with the democratic party (apparently because they were unwilling to give blacks more representation in the party leadership) and went off to become a minister and start New Communities. Unfortunately, it looks like he chose a model for that venture based more on communism than capitalism. And that might have as much to do with it's failure as any drought or racism.Ahh my heart sings when I see conservatives attempting to make the Sherrod non-story into a story. ;) Since the "NAACP racism!!" thing didn't pan out it's transformed into "lets try our best to demonize Sherrod" instead. Grasping..at..straws.

[Lurker]

First, you make the mistake of assuming that local school boards and state politicians have more impact on education than the federal level. (...)

Adn I don't disagree with a lot of what you wrote but I think we can both agree it is very complex, attempting to determine who is in charge and has impact of local schools. that you are able to divine that the blame lies with Democrats and liberals is pretty amazing, although not altogether surprising.

By the way, you've also shot yourself in the foot with the study you linked because it says that only 56% of black students graduate nation-wide on average. Clearly, at 71.8%, Texas is doing quite well in comparison. Also, 56% is nothing to boast about when private/charter schools have been taking blacks from the same populations and graduating 80-90%. :D
See, there you go cherry picking data again. You can't choose just Texas and ignore the rest. I mentioned TX as an example, not as THE example.


By the way, take a look at the 25 worst performing public schools in the country: http://www.walletpop.com/mortgages/worst-performing-public-schools/ . Here are the cities/states they are in along with the party that appears to have controlled that city for last 30 years or so:

D - Milwaukee, Wis.
D - Chicago Ill.
D - Philadelphia, Pa
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Chicago, Ill.
R (slight edge) Columbus, Oh
R? - Highland Park, Mich
D - Chicago, Ill
R - Greenville, SC
Indian reservation - Sacaton Ariz
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Florence, SC
D - Charleston, SC
D - Poughkeepsie, NY
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
Indian reservation - St Francis, SD
D - Chicago, Ill
D - North Charleston, SC
D - Milwaukee, Wis
D - Milwaukee, Wis
Aiken, SC
D - East St Louis, Ill.

Looks to me like democrats are in control of most of those. :D

Cities, yes. I wonder if economics has anything to do with graduation rate? I suggest you google correlation/causation, BAC. It most certainly applies here. That bad graduation rates are prevalent in urban areas - wow, that's a real shocker! Must be the Democrat's fault. ;)

My point was that poor black grad rates appears to be party-blind. both conservatives and liberals are doing poorly by the black community when it comes to education. Who is at fault? I don't know if fault lies with one party.

[Lurker]

Did noone in the Obama administration and Obama DOJ bother to ask this question?

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/07/27/pigford-v-glickman-86000-claims-from-39697-total-farmers/

If there are only 39,697 African-American farmers grand total in the entire country, then how can over 86,000 of them claim discrimination at the hands of the USDA? Where did the other 46,303 come from?


Or perhaps they just didn't care because this wasn't about discrimination against farmers in the first place ... but reparations. :confused:

I guess you missed the part of your source that said this:

and any black farmer who had filed a complaint between 1983 and 1997 would be given at least $50,000

You are comparing current # of farmers yet the lawsuit goes back to 1983. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out the why there is a discrepancy.

[BeAChooser]

So the issue is public education vs. private education it seems. Not Liberal vs. Conservative.

So now you are not only not listening, but you are deliberately mischaracterizing what I've said with strawmen you think you can knock down. :rolleyes:

Or do actually believe liberals hate private schools?

Well certainly democrat Congressmen don't mind them. They are far more likely to send their kids to private schools than republican Congressmen. :D

But as far as supporting them for the masses, they've been steadfastly opposed … because teacher's union money has been opposed. Only recently have they begun to go along with the notion of charter schools and that's probably only because the unions saw an opportunity to expand even though the idea of unionized charter schools will prevent much that could be gained in cost and accountability from them.

Are you implying private schools are somehow a conservative institution and public schools a liberal one?

In the K-12 arena that's been pretty much the case. Anywhere there is a union you can almost guarantee democrat decisions are in play.

Do you believe conservatives bare no blame in the current status of public education?

See what I mean about you descending to strawmen in your arguments? I've neither said nor implied any such thing. Of course conservatives share blame, if for no other reason then they allowed the publics schools to become the democrat dominated institution they've become. They've allowed public schools to be about something other than getting a good education. I cringed when George Bush and Ted Kennedy stood side by side to expand such a failed institution to even greater size and waste. The problem is that republicans fear the way democrats and their complicit mainstream media will present any reluctance to go along with such stupidity to a public that the democrat controlled public school system has successfully dumbed down. And you'd admit that if you were honest about it.

Again you seem confused about my stance.

If there's confusion, there is noone to blame but you and the way you've phrased things during this discussion. :)

I'm not blaming anyone for slavery or using it as an excuse for any plight i've suffered.

I know you aren't blaming the *effective* slavery that's been promulgated by liberals on the black community that last 50 years. That's the problem.

My point was simply that the niche black people have filled seems to be endemic to our origins in this country.

Shirley Sherrod claimed she'd changed and was no longer a racist, then turned right around in the same speech and blamed racism (Obama being black) for opposition to the health care bill. You've effectively made the same argument with regards to slavery. The very way you phrased that statement suggests you do still believe slavery is the cause of the black community's continuing failure to do what so many other immigrant populations have done. Whereas I ask why your community hasn't done what the Japanese community did in this country following World War 2.

Tell me, Juniversal, are you aware that prior to the start of LBJ's War On Poverty, more than half of blacks had already entered the middle class (the $15,000 - $50,000 income range)? But after the democrat WOP began, what's happened? Well, contrary to the public perception that mainstream media has fostered, that percentage declined. According to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/race/economics/analysis.html , in 1970, that percentage was 56%. But by 1994, it had declined to less than 47% … despite the government spending literally trillions and trillions of dollars on welfare programs that largely targeted the black community.

Shockingly, this 2007 article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/13/ST2007111300084.html ) indicates that

forty-five percent of black children whose parents were solidly middle class in 1968 -- a stratum with a median income of $55,600 in inflation-adjusted dollars -- grew up to be among the lowest fifth of the nation's earners, with a median family income of $23,100"


despite over 10 trillion dollars being funneled into welfare related programs over that period. Something really went VERY, VERY wrong with that multi-trillion dollar social experiment that democrats began in 1964. Now a Columbia University economist that the Washington Post quoted said "There is a lot of downward mobility among African Americans. We don't have an explanation." But I think we do know the explanation. It's been staring that economist and the nation in the face for quite some time.

And here is a clue:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16281886


November 14, 2007

A new poll by the Pew Research Center shows that many African-Americans say they can no longer be seen as a single race. Work ethic and education are creating a class divide. Nearly 40 percent of low-income blacks say they have nothing in common with middle-income and poor blacks.

… snip …

INSKEEP: So when large numbers of black Americans say they don't think there's just one race there anymore, they're not really talking about skin color; they're talking about values and economics?

WILLIAMS: Exactly. What we're talking about is things like work ethic and education. … snip ...

WILLIAMS: Right now, Steve, it's like 53 percent of black Americans who say that African-Americans who aren't getting ahead are responsible for their own problems, and then two-thirds of all Americans - whites, blacks, Hispanics - now feel that personal behavior - and by that we come back to the values concern - that wrong values with regard to education, keeping family together - that those are the things that are keeping poor black people oppressed. It's not racism.


Note that there are two black income groups that did see growth between 1970 and 1994. Blacks making between $50,000 and $75,000, and blacks making more than $75,000. And I'm willing to bet most of them achieved that through a good education and by embracing the capitalist, rather than socialist, system. Most of them achieved that because of the new opportunities that resulted from the Civil Rights Law … not welfare. They did it by not being victicrats dependent on the government. (Although there is one other possibility for part of that increase. Some of that increase could reflect more blacks working for the government and that's effectively just another form of dole.)

You're great at making baseless assumptions. Hate to break it to you but my family has never been on welfare (not to say nobody in my extended family hasn't because that's certainly not the case) and we definately struggled. Even if we were on welfare it would be out of neccesity.

Good for you. And perhaps I shouldn't have written "you", when I'm just trying to get you to focus on the black community in general. And the victicrat mentality that dominates it.

Seems you're commiting the causation/correlation fallacy.

Get your head out of the liberal quicksand. Here's a rope to pull yourself out. I direct you to the middle portion of the article starting here:

http://www.andrewbernstein.net/articles/7_welfarestate.htm


The government’s post-1960s policies must be examined in their cumulative effect. The state made welfare a more lucrative short-term option than full-time minimum-wage employment. It made chronic illegitimacy a superior financial alternative to marriage and self-supporting family. It increasingly refused to discourage unruly behavior in school. By promoting even those who failed to learn, it undercut the motivation to study and get an education. By permitting disruptions and undermining motivation, it made learning as difficult as possible in the urban public schools. By decreasingly punishing youthful offenders, it encouraged crime. Governmental policies have encouraged indolence, illegitimacy, lack of family structure and supervision, disruptive school behavior, diminished education and crime.


and ending here:


The government’s effort to help the black urban poor has resulted in reduced employment, diminished economic progress and soaring rates of illegitimacy and crime. Conservatives have long pointed out one level of causation. If the government financially encourages indolence, illegitimacy and the decline of two-parent households, and if it adopts a more permissive attitude toward disruptive behavior in the schools and criminal behavior in the streets, then it makes a direct assault on the ethics of personal responsibility necessary for individuals to lead a productive life.


I really hope you will read that entire article and not just dismiss it out of hand. Because it has a wealth of common-sense, data, causation and correlation … just what the black community needs at this juncture … rather than simply stepping deeper into the socialist, victicrat quicksand because democrat leaders and racebaiting black leaders suggest that.

And what is this liberal attack on marriage you speak of? I don't recall anyone condemning marriage

You never heard of NOW? :D

Here, I'll let Ann Coulter answer your question, from her book "Guilty: liberal 'victims' and their assault on America":


Still, the Left's transformation of society from family-based to single-mother-based has been accomplished with astonishing speed. Author Maggie Gallagher, who, as an erstwhle single mother, speaks with some authority, says the problem is that people shrink from addressing the social disasters of their friends. People are mum about the horror of single motherhood -- if they know a single mother. They refuse to condemn divorse -- if they know a divorcee. They can't think of a single objection to gay adoption -- if they know a gay couple that has adopted. … snip …

That would help explain how marriage, the central force in tranmitting civilization, has unraveled with such alacrity. Starting only a few decades ago, liberals launched a three-front attack on marriage through the courts, the welfare system, and popular culture. With each incremental gain, their advances grew geometrically as people lost the ability to condemn what their family, friends, and neighbors were doing. … snip …

Welfare bureaucrats paid single women money just for having children out of wedlock, liberal justices on the Supreme Court stripped away the legal benefits of marriage, and pop culture glamorized single motherhood far more than cigarette companies have ever dreamed of glamorizing smoking. While massquerading as socially conscious do-gooders speaking for society's victims, liberals created a world where there would be a constant supply of new victims in need of their merciful aid. An illegitimate child might or might not be better off by having contact with his biological father. But social workers would definitely be better off with a lot more illegitimate children.

Time and again, organizations purporting to speak for the children urged the courts to abolish the legal protections of marriage. To quote Irving Kristol again, liberalism "aims simultaneously at political and social collectivism on the one hand, and moral anarchy on the other. It cannot win, but it camn make us all losers." The problem with liberalism, he says, "is liberalism."

… snip …

To eliminate the pain of illegitimacy, liberals set out to destroy the stigma attached to illegitimacy, rather than reduce its incidence. They turned a small problem into a national crisis by attacking laws that supported the idea that children should be born within marriage. Stigma or no stigma, the damage done to children born outside of marriage is the same.

From various Supreme Court decisions stripping marriage of its legal benefits, through Hillary Clinton's comparison of marriage and the family to "slavery and the Indian reservation system," right up to the Left's freakish obsession with gay marriage today, liberals have never been able to grasp the point of marriage. The only interest society has in marriage is its abilituy to harness men's energy and direct it to the upbringing of particular children, allowing children to grow up in a secure environment and not become rapists and serial killers.

And then Coulter goes on to detail instance after instance where liberals have worked to destroy the institution of marriage and it's ability to fulfill that important role in society.


But I also don't believe marriage is some magic solution. If a immature 16 year old girl has an unplanned pregnancy with an equally immature boy than i'd say marriage is not a reasonable solution. And in many cases these days it is immature 16 year olds having kids with immature 16 year olds.

So let's see if I have *your* logic right. Marriage isn't the solution because it can't fix the problem liberals created by destroying the institution of marriage with welfare and social de-stigmification. Well, I don't agree. I think that if we eliminate most of the welfare crutch and re-stigmify out of wedlock birth, in one or two generations you will find this problem much reduced.

Do your grandparents want a cookie?

What sort of smart-ass response is that? That's the problem with the left. It's got nothing left but more failed policy and smart-ass remarks because of an inability to learn from history and wise advice from others.


Quote:
You really believe that black leaders are only a reflection of the black community and not trying to convince the black community of anything?

In many cases? Yes.

Well name a few. Let's see if you're right. :D


I just don't need Larry Elder to preach and condascend to me about things i'm fully aware of.

Are you? I'm a little skeptical because you seem to have resisted his message from the very start of this conversation. I question whether you really have a problem with black ministers preaching the sermon of victimization. Obama didn't. He attended Reverend's Wright's sermons every week for years and years. He called him a mentor. He titled his book after something Wright said. So what do you think of Wright?

Bond is not a "racemonger" ala Jesse Jackson or Sharpton. Simply a civil rights activist (an activist for gay rights as well which I think is great) who's activism extends beyond the civil rights movement era.

True, Jackson and Sharpton are in a class of their own. But Julian Bond is indeed using race to preach the gospel of victimization because he puts racism on the front burner when there are so many more serious problems facing the black community that simply aren't caused by racism. And in 2004 he told NAACP convention delegates that President Bush and other republicans appeal to a racist "dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality." "They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division ... their idea of reparations is to give war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon." Sorry, but in my book those statements clearly makes him a race monger and race baiter. So does his statement that republicans "draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution." So does his refering to the GOP as "the white people's party". Over and over he uses claims of racism as the centerpiece of his statements. As Larry Elder is right to point out.

Social justice...boogity boogity boo!! Never have I seen anyone try to apply a negative connotation to social justice until Beck.

Then you haven't been paying much attention. Long before Glen Beck entered the TV world, the "social justice" philosophy was being identified for what it is … a code word for communism. It has it's foundations in the writings of Brazilian Marxist/socialist, Paolo Freire. Read this to learn a little about that: http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13978 "Social Justice: Code for Communism".

Long before Beck got his Fox News show, Obama's communist associates were promoting "social justice". Remember Mike Klonksy? His father was a communist who was convicted in the 1950s of advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government. Well like father, like son. Mike is a marxist who was one of the few allowed to visit Red China before it opened it's doors to the world. Really hardcore. He is also someone that Obama has maintained a continuing relationship for more than a decade. During the Chicago Anneburg Challenge, which Obama and little "c" communist Bill Ayers co-chaired, he was handed the lion's share of the money to teach America's children … presumably about "social justice", which is his number one issue. Klonsky was given a webpage on Obama's Presidential campaign website promoting … guess what … "social justice". It was one of the few webpages that Michelle Obama's web page linked. Only when his communist affiliations (which Obama had to know about given his decade long history with Klonsky before that) were noticed by conservatives did both Klonsky's page and Michelle's link to it quietly disappear. I think the story of Klonsky and Obama's relationship is far from meaningless … especially in the context of "social justice". Just as the story of Obama and Bill Ayers, another big "social justice" advocate, is far from meaningless. You just haven't been paying attention.

Also I would think you would enthusiastic about Obama attempting to recreate the results of the program since you're so adamant at the qaulity of private school education vs. public school education.

I told you why I have my doubts he can do that and keep liberals happy. I told you why I doubt his motivations in doing it. I told you why I think actually trying to fix the public school system makes more sense. Rather than just starting a few schools at a tremendous cost per student to serve the needs of (it appears) the black community, while ignoring the much larger problem that democrat control of public education has created over the years. Why ignore all I told you?


Quote:
Maybe what we need to do instead is figure out why the HCZ schools work compared to public schools and fix the public schools? Is it the fact that HCZ schools maintain student discipline whereas public schools don't? Is it the fact that HCZ students spend 50% more time in school than regular public school kids? Is it the fact that HCZ schools seem to teach middle class values rather than tear them down like so many public schools do? Is it the fact that it only enrolls 1% "limited English proficient" students? But can we really afford schools where the staff to child ratio is 8 to 1?

I don't know. But whatever it is it seems to be working.

But perhaps all those conditions just make this a special case rather than a workable general solution to the overall public education problem? For one thing, how much does the HCZ program really cost, per student? The HCZ website lists its 2010 budget as about $48 million, and claims it costs an average of $5,000 per child (other liberal sources tout HCZ as costing only $3500 per student), but frankly that claim is just plain dishonest.

When HCZ and it's allies throw out numbers like 14,000 or 17,000 people "served" by the Zone, they are including kids whose after school programs are run by HCZ, and adults who get annual tax help or one-shot housing guidance (shades of ACORN). And even the claim of 14,000 served at an average cost of $5000 would put the budget in the $70 million range, not the $48 million range. But more important, there are actually only about 1200 children in HCZ charter schools. Here's a more accurate presentation of HCZ's finances (one corroborated by sources such as Education Week):

http://educatedguess.org/2010/04/01/harlem-childrens-zone-times-20/


It’s not clear whether Harlem Children’s Zone can be replicated; certainly its scale can’t. Canada is a prodigious fund-raiser; his organization has a $70 million budget and an endowment of $170 million. [b]It spends $19,000 on the 1,200 students in its two charter schools and $5,000 per child on other children in the 70-block Zone.

Did you get that? $19,000 per student, plus a capital endowment in the hundreds of millions of dollars (just for 1200 students a year capacity)! That's nearly two and half times the current average cost of public schools per student nationwide (assuming you believe the figures the public schools cite on cost). It's just not going to fly because lack of money isn't the problem at most schools … private schools have proven that over and over.

I don't care about the origins of the word. I'm talking about the connotation.

And you think the connotations of "red neck" and the N-word are the same? :rolleyes:

[BeAChooser]

See, there you go cherry picking data again. You can't choose just Texas and ignore the rest. I mentioned TX as an example, not as THE example.

And I ripped your example apart. :D

Cities, yes.

Oh … so now local politics don't matter? :D

I wonder if economics has anything to do with graduation rate?

Well if that's the case then Washington DC schools, which spend close to $25,000 per student (a point I've proven many times on previous threads), should have an astounding graduation rate. Right? But they don't. The graduation rate in DC schools is terrible. The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/08/AR2009060803996.html ) says that half the students don't graduate. In fact, (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13458 ) "only 12% of 8th-graders in the District's public schools scored at grade-level proficiency or better in reading in the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress tests that were administered in the District and all 50 states. Only 7% of the District's public-school 8th-graders scored grade-level proficiency or better in math." How do you explain that, Lurker?

Seriously, Lurker, if economics is really what matters, then why (http://blog.bestandworststates.com/2009/01/29/state-rankings-on-education-spending.aspx) do students at Utah schools, which spend the least in the US per public school student, get higher SAT scores than say Vermont, which spends the most per student on average? In fact, the highest SAT scores in the US come from Iowa which only spends at the national average (i.e., 25th place). And the worst SAT scores come from Maine which spends the 5th most. Is economics the explanation? :D

And let's look at the worst schools in that list of worst schools I mentioned earlier. Turns out that 38 of the schools in the worst 100 schools are in South Carolina (http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/south-carolina-is-home-to-11-of-nations-25-worst-public-schools/ ). And if my sampling of the 25 worst schools is a guide, all of them are democrat controlled. And this (http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.wordpress.com/2008/08/04/what-does-your-district-spend-per-child/ ) indicates that in 2008-2009 South Carolina public schools spent an average of $11,480 per student which is above what's claimed is the national average for spending. It's $1300 more than North Carolina which has no schools in that 25 worst schools list. And in fact, this analysis (http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/poorest-schools-are-states-best-funded/ ) finds that the worst schools in South Carolina are in the best funded districts. How do you explain that, Lurker?

both conservatives and liberals are doing poorly by the black community when it comes to education. Who is at fault? I don't know if fault lies with one party.

But only one party wants to keep the school system the way it is … entirely public, entirely union controlled, and increasingly focused on "social justice". I see where the fault lies even if you don't. :D

[BeAChooser]

I guess you missed the part of your source that said this:

and any black farmer who had filed a complaint between 1983 and 1997 would be given at least $50,000

You are comparing current # of farmers yet the lawsuit goes back to 1983. I'll leave it as an exercise for you to figure out the why there is a discrepancy.

I suggest you should have done a browser search first.

http://letjusticeroll.blogspot.com/2010/03/blackcommentator-black-farmers-and.html


There were an estimated 926,000 black-run farms in the U.S. in 1920. By the early 1980s, there were said to be only 33,000 and, by the 1990s, even that low number had dwindled by a third.


http://www.ag.auburn.edu/auxiliary/srsa/pages/Articles/SRS%201990%207%20106-121.pdf


By 1987, black farm numbers had declined by 98 percent to 22,954.


http://www.hpj.com/archives/2010/jun10/jun7/0601AgriPulseMRsr.cfm


Already, the number of people who have been paid and are still seeking payment will likely exceed the 26,785 black farmers who were considered to even be operating back in 1997, according to USDA. At that time, sources predicted that at most 3,000 might qualify.


http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-76296531/returning-african-american-farmers.html


The number of black farmers in the United States peaked at approximately 926,000 in 1920 (Beale 1966; U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 1982; Banks 1986; Wimberley et al. 1992). Between 1920 and 1969 there was a 90 percent decrease and by 1997 a 98 percent decrease.

Now a 90 decrease means that in 1969 there were only 93,000 or so black farmers. A 98% decrease means there were only about 19,000 black farmers in 1997. Assuming a straight line decrease between the two dates means that in 1983 there would have been about the 33,000 black farmers in 1983, just like the first source I cited indicated.

So Lurker, how come 86,000 claims were filed? Hmmmmmm? :D

[BeAChooser]

Ahh my heart sings when I see conservatives attempting to make the Sherrod non-story into a story. ;) Since the "NAACP racism!!" thing didn't pan out it's transformed into "lets try our best to demonize Sherrod" instead. Grasping..at..straws.

LOL! I suspect you haven't heard the last of the NAACP and racism.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/29/sherrod-says-she-will-sue-andrew-breitbart/


Sherrod says she will sue Andrew Breitbart

And don't think this won't backfire. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

First, you make the mistake of assuming that local school boards and state politicians have more impact on education than the federal level. ...And yet you cite city politicians below.

Plus, major elements of the curriculum are set at the national level by national organizations of one form or another. For example, the NEA which is democrat controlled has considerable influence. So does the AERA which is highly liberal. Also, you need to consider the effect of universities on public schools because universities train the teachers and teachers have a significant impact on the message that gets relayed to students. Teachers are predominantly liberal in part because the colleges are predominantly liberal.What country do you live in? Ever hear of the Texas school board's influence on public school textbooks?

Second, you make the mistake of thinking the red/blue labels at the state level mean much at the local level. Perhaps they don't. For example, Mississippi, is red, but the mayor of Jackson appoints the school board and he is a democrat. You need to ask yourself what fraction of public school boards are conservative.

You might be surprised. democrats dominate school boards in general, in part because republicans foolishly let them control school boards for so long thinking they weren't that important. What source do you have for this incredulous claim? School boards reflect their communities. Many parents get very involved in the schools their kids attend. That is equally true for conservative parents as it is for progressive parents.


...By the way, take a look at the 25 worst performing public schools in the country: http://www.walletpop.com/mortgages/worst-performing-public-schools/ . Here are the cities/states they are in along with the party that appears to have controlled that city for last 30 years or so:

D - Milwaukee, Wis.
D - Chicago Ill.
D - Philadelphia, Pa
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Chicago, Ill.
R (slight edge) Columbus, Oh
R? - Highland Park, Mich
D - Chicago, Ill
R - Greenville, SC
Indian reservation - Sacaton Ariz
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - Florence, SC
D - Charleston, SC
D - Poughkeepsie, NY
D (slight edge) - Columbia, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
D - North Charleston, SC
Indian reservation - St Francis, SD
D - Chicago, Ill
D - North Charleston, SC
D - Milwaukee, Wis
D - Milwaukee, Wis
Aiken, SC
D - East St Louis, Ill.

Looks to me like democrats are in control of most of those. :DSchools are not run by cities. They are run by their own districts with state input. In addition, going by the outcome of WA State's school performance tests that have been in place now for a number of years, the scores are tightly correlated with the school's free lunch programs which are a reflection of the income brackets of the children in each district. If lots of kids are in the free lunch program at any particular school, the school's scores are lower, regardless of the district, and vice versa.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here cherry picking city party affiliations. In addition, the source you picked to ID the "worst schools" uses its own 'secret' methodology:The findings reported here use each school's own No Child Left Behind test scores, but standardized by Neighborhood Scout's patent-pending methodology for true national comparison.

[Juniversal]

So now you are not only not listening, but you are deliberately mischaracterizing what I've said with strawmen you think you can knock down. :rolleyes:Do you even know what a strawman is? :rolleyes: I stated my position (considering the links you offered, the problem appears to be public schools vs. private schools. Not liberal vs. conservative). A strawman = misrepresenting YOUR position. I stated MY position.


See what I mean about you descending to strawmen in your arguments? I've neither said nor implied any such thing. Of course conservatives share blame, if for no other reason then they allowed the publics schools to become the democrat dominated institution they've become. They've allowed public schools to be about something other than getting a good education. I cringed when George Bush and Ted Kennedy stood side by side to expand such a failed institution to even greater size and waste. The problem is that republicans fear the way democrats and their complicit mainstream media will present any reluctance to go along with such stupidity to a public that the democrat controlled public school system has successfully dumbed down. And you'd admit that if you were honest about it.:rolleyes: You clearly don't know what a strawman is.

A strawman would be as follows:

"Why do you hate kids succeding in public schools?"

or

sarcastically saying "Yea conservatives have absolutely NO cupability in the current state of education". :rolleyes:

Simply asking if you believe if Conservatives bare no responsibility is not a strawman. And you answered my question. You clearly believe there's shared responsibility.


Shirley Sherrod claimed she'd changed and was no longer a racist, then turned right around in the same speech and blamed racism (Obama being black) for opposition to the health care bill. You've effectively made the same argument with regards to slavery. The very way you phrased that statement suggests you do still believe slavery is the cause of the black community's continuing failure to do what so many other immigrant populations have done. Whereas I ask why your community hasn't done what the Japanese community did in this country following World War 2.Yes I believe to assess the current status of a certain group you have to look to the past. Do you object to me doing so? Do you believe the past has no implications on the future? Does the social niche black americans seem to have carved out for ourselves not have origins in the past?


Tell me, Juniversal, are you aware that prior to the start of LBJ's War On Poverty, more than half of blacks had already entered the middle class (the $15,000 - $50,000 income range)? But after the democrat WOP began, what's happened? Well, contrary to the public perception that mainstream media has fostered, that percentage declined. According to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/race/economics/analysis.html , in 1970, that percentage was 56%. But by 1994, it had declined to less than 47% … despite the government spending literally trillions and trillions of dollars on welfare programs that largely targeted the black community.

Shockingly, this 2007 article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/11/13/ST2007111300084.html ) indicates that



despite over 10 trillion dollars being funneled into welfare related programs over that period. Something really went VERY, VERY wrong with that multi-trillion dollar social experiment that democrats began in 1964. Now a Columbia University economist that the Washington Post quoted said "There is a lot of downward mobility among African Americans. We don't have an explanation." But I think we do know the explanation. It's been staring that economist and the nation in the face for quite some time.

And here is a clue:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16281886



Note that there are two black income groups that did see growth between 1970 and 1994. Blacks making between $50,000 and $75,000, and blacks making more than $75,000. And I'm willing to bet most of them achieved that through a good education and by embracing the capitalist, rather than socialist, system. Most of them achieved that because of the new opportunities that resulted from the Civil Rights Law … not welfare. They did it by not being victicrats dependent on the government. (Although there is one other possibility for part of that increase. Some of that increase could reflect more blacks working for the government and that's effectively just another form of dole.)Another correlation - causation fallacy. How many of the unwed mothers during the 1970's and 80's (for example) accounted for in the welfare rolls? Your dissection also ignores other pertinent issues that occured during the 60's and 70's (business flight, deindustrialization, social upheaval/riots, ect.)


Get your head out of the liberal quicksand. Here's a rope to pull yourself out. I direct you to the middle portion of the article starting here:

http://www.andrewbernstein.net/articles/7_welfarestate.htm



and ending here:



I really hope you will read that entire article and not just dismiss it out of hand. Because it has a wealth of common-sense, data, causation and correlation … just what the black community needs at this juncture … rather than simply stepping deeper into the socialist, victicrat quicksand because democrat leaders and racebaiting black leaders suggest that.Your link is broken. And there you go again suggesting that someone gets on welfare or plays the victim because "black leaders suggest that". People do have minds of their own fyi.


You never heard of NOW? :DI'll ask again. What liberal assualt on marriage?

Here, I'll let Ann Coulter answer your question, from her book "Guilty: liberal 'victims' and their assault on America":



And then Coulter goes on to detail instance after instance where liberals have worked to destroy the institution of marriage and it's ability to fulfill that important role in society.Yes, because Coulter is a reasonable voice of the right. Believe it or not there is no Liberal conspiracy to destroy marriage. I would hope you and coulter realize woman on welfare tend to use it for short periods of time. And where's the statistics that show that woman avoided getting married so they could take avantage of welfare programs?


So let's see if I have *your* logic right. Marriage isn't the solution because it can't fix the problem liberals created by destroying the institution of marriage with welfare and social de-stigmification. Well, I don't agree. I think that if we eliminate most of the welfare crutch and re-stigmify out of wedlock birth, in one or two generations you will find this problem much reduced.I said I didn't believe marriage was some "magic solution". Certainly if two responsible mature adults have a child, marriage is certainly a reasonable solution but if two irresponsible and immature children have a child then marriage for the sake of marriage is not the appropriate solution imo..


What sort of smart-ass response is that? That's the problem with the left. It's got nothing left but more failed policy and smart-ass remarks because of an inability to learn from history and wise advice from others.And what extraordinary and revolutionary policies does the Right have? I wait with baited breath. Also I don't need stories of your parents/grandparents to prove to me that perseverance will get you far.


Well name a few. Let's see if you're right. :DJulian Bond himself for one. John Lewis.


Are you? I'm a little skeptical because you seem to have resisted his message from the very start of this conversation. I question whether you really have a problem with black ministers preaching the sermon of victimization. Obama didn't. He attended Reverend's Wright's sermons every week for years and years. He called him a mentor. He titled his book after something Wright said. So what do you think of Wright? I'm no fan of Wright. I believe he's trapped in the 1950's and 60's mentality of millitant Civil Rights activism against the white anti-black establishment that has diminished immensely.


True, Jackson and Sharpton are in a class of their own. But Julian Bond is indeed using race to preach the gospel of victimization because he puts racism on the front burner when there are so many more serious problems facing the black community that simply aren't caused by racism. And in 2004 he told NAACP convention delegates that President Bush and other republicans appeal to a racist "dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality." "They preach racial neutrality and practice racial division ... their idea of reparations is to give war criminal Jefferson Davis a pardon." Sorry, but in my book those statements clearly makes him a race monger and race baiter. So does his statement that republicans "draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution." So does his refering to the GOP as "the white people's party". Over and over he uses claims of racism as the centerpiece of his statements. As Larry Elder is right to point out.I don't know if you're a aware but Bond is a Civil Rights activist. His statements are inline with his job description. I imagine you believe civil rights activism is race baiting by design. I don't see anything paticularly controversial about what he said. No more fiery then what you claim about Democrats and blacks.


Then you haven't been paying much attention. Long before Glen Beck entered the TV world, the "social justice" philosophy was being identified for what it is … a code word for communism. It has it's foundations in the writings of Brazilian Marxist/socialist, Paolo Freire. Read this to learn a little about that: http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13978 "Social Justice: Code for Communism".

Long before Beck got his Fox News show, Obama's communist associates were promoting "social justice". Remember Mike Klonksy? His father was a communist who was convicted in the 1950s of advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government. Well like father, like son. Mike is a marxist who was one of the few allowed to visit Red China before it opened it's doors to the world. Really hardcore. He is also someone that Obama has maintained a continuing relationship for more than a decade. During the Chicago Anneburg Challenge, which Obama and little "c" communist Bill Ayers co-chaired, he was handed the lion's share of the money to teach America's children … presumably about "social justice", which is his number one issue. Klonsky was given a webpage on Obama's Presidential campaign website promoting … guess what … "social justice". It was one of the few webpages that Michelle Obama's web page linked. Only when his communist affiliations (which Obama had to know about given his decade long history with Klonsky before that) were noticed by conservatives did both Klonsky's page and Michelle's link to it quietly disappear. I think the story of Klonsky and Obama's relationship is far from meaningless … especially in the context of "social justice". Just as the story of Obama and Bill Ayers, another big "social justice" advocate, is far from meaningless. You just haven't been paying attention.Bull :rule10. The Right has been demonizing liberals as communist for many a decade and I see that habit hasn't changed. You can't decide yourself if Obama is a communist or a socialist. :p


But perhaps all those conditions just make this a special case rather than a workable general solution to the overall public education problem? For one thing, how much does the HCZ program really cost, per student? The HCZ website lists its 2010 budget as about $48 million, and claims it costs an average of $5,000 per child (other liberal sources tout HCZ as costing only $3500 per student), but frankly that claim is just plain dishonest.

When HCZ and it's allies throw out numbers like 14,000 or 17,000 people "served" by the Zone, they are including kids whose after school programs are run by HCZ, and adults who get annual tax help or one-shot housing guidance (shades of ACORN). And even the claim of 14,000 served at an average cost of $5000 would put the budget in the $70 million range, not the $48 million range. But more important, there are actually only about 1200 children in HCZ charter schools. Here's a more accurate presentation of HCZ's finances (one corroborated by sources such as Education Week):

http://educatedguess.org/2010/04/01/harlem-childrens-zone-times-20/


Did you get that? $19,000 per student, plus a capital endowment in the hundreds of millions of dollars (just for 1200 students a year capacity)! That's nearly two and half times the current average cost of public schools per student nationwide (assuming you believe the figures the public schools cite on cost). It's just not going to fly because lack of money isn't the problem at most schools … private schools have proven that over and over.So your contention is that these programs shouldn't be recreated because they're too expensive? Surely a similar program can be institued without using the same amount of resources.


And you think the connotations of "red neck" and the N-word are the same? :rolleyes:Now that's a strawman if i've ever seen it. For one, I compared redneck to uncle tom. Not the N word. Also my point was that both words have racial connotations but aren't racist as your making the word "uncle tom" seem.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
First, you make the mistake of assuming that local school boards and state politicians have more impact on education than the federal level. ...

And yet you cite city politicians below.

Only to prove that the assumptions made by Lurker were consistently wrong. I'm not suggesting that local school boards and city officials have "no" impact. Of course they do. But the Federal government, teachers unions and liberal dominated education associations are still dominating the direction that public school systems are going … and have been going for some time. To deny that is to show true cluelessness or partisanship.

What country do you live in?

Sometimes I wonder. :)

Ever hear of the Texas school board's influence on public school textbooks?

LOL! You want to use Texas as an example again? Sure thing. :D

First, let me make it clear once and for all … I'm not saying school boards have "no" influence. But what the school boards choose as books is influenced by (1) mostly liberal teachers, (2) mostly liberal education associations like the NEA and AERA, and (3) federal government guidelines on what must be taught to get federal dollars.

Or at least that has been the case until conservatives recently began to wake up to the importance of schools in shaping the way their all-too-soon-to-be-adult children view the world, history, economics, and morality. The feeling in Texas now is that the curriculum has been unfairly skewed to the left.

And why would it be skewed to the left? Because the curriculum in Texas is only revised every 10 years and 10 years ago it was democrats who dominated the school board, not republicans (http://www.thegrio.com/news/texas-school-board-votes-for-conservative-curriculum.php ). And it was democrat dominated in the 10 years before that. The textbook controversy in Texas is just a facet of the changing perception and activism of conservative parents. Who are tired of textbooks referring to the US as a "democracy" instead of a "constitutional republic". Who don't think Cesar Chavez deserves the same space in history books as the founding fathers. And who think that history like the Contract With America should be taught, not just misinformation about FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society. :D


School boards reflect their communities. … Many parents get very involved in the schools their kids attend. That is equally true for conservative parents as it is for progressive parents.

LOL! What country do you live in? :)

Up till recently most Americans … especially conservatives … have paid very little attention to who is on school boards. Democrats have been far more active and successful in getting liberals on school boards than conservatives. Which is why the composition of schools boards in state after state and city after city does not match the conservative/liberal composition of the community.

You want some examples of that disinterest?

http://blogs.buffalonews.com/live/2010/05/as-predicted-voter-turnout-low-at-school-board-elections.html


As predicted, voter turnout low at School Board elections


http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/jul/23/big-job-little-voter-interest/


Serving on School Board a big job with little voter*interest

School Board elections often decided by fraction of*electorate


And speaking of disinterest and Texas,

http://libertymarket.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/a-few-thoughts-on-the-texas-school-board-decision/


In the last election, held on 11/04/2008, there were 7 state school board seats up for grabs. All but one of the seats were won by incumbents because District 6 had no incumbent. The highest vote count in this election was in District 14 where 579,172 people voted in school board race. These school board elections happened on the same night as the Presidential election when voter turnout is always the highest. Over 8 million people in Texas voted that night for President so I guess most of them either forgot to or didn’t care to vote for their school board member. I bring this up because if everyone who voted for Barack Obama, and lived in a District where there was a school board election, had voted for the Democrat running for school board, that would have had a huge impact on the recent curriculum decision.



Schools are not run by cities.

Actually you are wrong in many cases. Take Los Angeles, for example. It's the second largest school district in the US. It has a 7 member Board of Education. The mayor of Los Angeles currently has considerable power where the school board is concerned (and, in fact, now wants total control).

Or look at New York City, the country's largest public school system. It too has a Board of Education consisting of 7 members. Two are appointed by the mayor (and if you think Bloomberg is conservative, you are delusional). The others are appointed by the Borough Presidents (who generally are also liberals). And since 2002, the mayor also gets to appoint the chancellor of the system and has more direct control over many aspects of it. And note that democrats were against mayoral control of the Board of Education during Guilianni's term as mayor, when the Board of Education was controlled by democrats. Isn't that interesting? :D

The fact is that the mayors of many cities have a strong influence on the makeup of the school boards. I listed a few example earlier. And even if the school boards are elected at large, isn't it likely that the politics of the school board will match the politics of the major or city manager. Meaning that if the mayor of the city happens to be democrat, there is a better than 50% chance that so is the school board. Just common sense, SG. :D

In addition, going by the outcome of WA State's school performance tests that have been in place now for a number of years, the scores are tightly correlated with the school's free lunch programs which are a reflection of the income brackets of the children in each district. If lots of kids are in the free lunch program at any particular school, the school's scores are lower, regardless of the district, and vice versa.

Talk about muddying the water. :rolleyes: I didn't know that anyone didn't get free lunches nowadays, SG. Afterall, Uncle Sam currently hands our free or subsidized meals to 32 million kids. In fact, 62% of children who eat school lunches are getting free or reduced price meals. I frankly suspect your claimed correlation is worthless but I'd love to see more about it so why don't you offer a source to back it up. (Oh … and by the way … isn't the liberal justification for the free lunch program supposed to be that it will increase student performance? Don't they claim it did that in Massachusetts? Hmmmmm? :D)

[BeAChooser]

Do you even know what a strawman is?

Yes. Falsely claiming your opponent holds a position so you can knock it down. Which is what you tried to do. Several times. :D


Simply asking if you believe if Conservatives bare no responsibility is not a strawman.

LOL! Is that all you were doing? Just asking an innocent question to find out what I thought? Sorry, but you and I both know that's not all you were doing. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would you? Perhaps you thought you could lead our audience into thinking I believe conservatives bare no blame for the current status of public education … by couching it in the form of a question? Well I object, your honor. :D

Yes I believe to assess the current status of a certain group you have to look to the past. Do you object to me doing so? Do you believe the past has no implications on the future?

If you are half as smart as you appear, you don't honestly think I think the past has no implications on the future, so why do you ask the question? My question to you is why have Japanese Americans been relatively successful post-WW2 compared to blacks? Do you think there was no discrimination against the Japanese after WW2? Do you think the Japanese came out of the internment camps loaded with money and land? Just curious?

Another correlation - causation fallacy.

One can lead a horse to water but one can't make him drink. If all you are going to do is casually dismiss any statistics, facts and logic that are offered, I'll stop trying and simply let our audience on this thread decide who has made his/her case so far and leave it at that. I won't beat my head against a stone wall.

Your link is broken.

It works fine on my computer. Perhaps your computer or browser is broken. Don't tell me, you've got a PC? Try a Mac and Safari, instead. It's a wonderful experience. :D

And there you go again suggesting that someone gets on welfare or plays the victim because "black leaders suggest that". People do have minds of their own fyi.

Obstinant, stubborn minds, perhaps. What? Have you no comment about the 45% of black children of parents who were middle class in 1968 who are now in the lowest fifth of earners? What happened to them for things to go so wrong at the same time that the nation was shoveling trillions of dollars into anti-poverty programs, many of which were aimed specifically at blacks? And despite decades of economic prosperity in this country overall … prosperity that created millions and millions and millions of new jobs? What went wrong?

Here, let me quote a little more from that link you say you can't access (it's from an essay titled "The Welfare State Versus Values and the Mind" by Andrew Bernstein):


As of 1950, the percentage of black families that consisted of husband-wife households was 78 percent; as late as 1967, the ratio hovered in the range of 72 to 75 percent. All of this changed in the post-1960s period. … snip ..,

By the late 1960s and 1970s, the welfare system was in place, and its effects were fully felt. In many cases, families never formed, as AFDC payments allowed men to reject marriage and full-time employment. In New York City in 1970, 600,000 children belonged to welfare families, of whom 445,000 had no fathers in their lives. By 1980, 48 percent of black babies were born to single mothers, compared to 17 percent in 1950. In that same year, 82 percent of all children born to black girls aged 15-19 were illegitimate. By 1998, the illegitimacy rate for black children stood at a staggering 70 percent.

The news is equally grim regarding the trends in LFP [labor force participation]. In 1954, 85 percent of black males aged sixteen or older were participating in the labor force, i.e., were either working or actively seeking employment. Such a high figure was not unusual, for black males had been participating in the labor force at rates as high or higher than white males back to the turn of the 20th century. But from 1966-1976, the black reduction in LFP was 271 percent higher than for whites, with the overwhelming preponderance of the decline centering on young males aged 16-24. However, older black men (those born before 1950) showed a significant rise in employment during the same period. This means that young black men were showing vastly less interest in working than had their fathers, grandfathers and even older brothers. Something had changed for those who reached their late teens in the late 1960s and 1970s.


And what do you think that was, Juniversal? Got a clue? :D

Quote:
You never heard of NOW?

I'll ask again. What liberal assualt on marriage?

And I'll remark again, you've never heard of NOW?

In 2007 NOW filed suit against the Bush administration seeking to abolish Fathers Day. In speaking on the lawsuit, Andrea Dworkin, one of NOW's longterm members stated "marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." On other occasions she stated marriage is "a legal license to rape" and that one "of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man"? When she died NOW eulogized her, calling her "one of feminism's more rigourous minds and fiercest crusaders." Now there's a liberal pro-marriage institution if there ever one. (sarcasm)

Yes, because Coulter is a reasonable voice of the right. Believe it or not there is no Liberal conspiracy to destroy marriage.

Which you claim not by having defeated the factual content of what Coulter offered in her book (do you wish to claim that link was broken too?), but by a hand-waving dismissal. Like I said earlier, if all you are going to do is casually dismiss any statistics, facts and logic that are offered, I'll stop trying and simply let our audience on this thread decide who has made his/her case so far and leave it at that. You might walk away thinking you've won this debate, but you haven't. Far from it.

I would hope you and coulter realize woman on welfare tend to use it for short periods of time.

Do they?

From 1996, http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html


Time on Welfare and Welfare Dependency

Testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Human Resources

… snip …

Over the course of their lifetimes, about one-third of women who ever use welfare will spend longer than five years on the welfare rolls and 60 percent will spend 24 months or longer receiving assistance.

It is important to note that the figures I just presented are for women who ever turn to the welfare system for support, regardless of whether they are currently receiving assistance or not. A very different picture of time on welfare emerges if one examines the total time families currently receiving welfare will spend on the welfare rolls over the course of their lifetimes. About 90 percent of those currently on the rolls will eventually spend more than 24 months on the welfare rolls and 76 percent will receive welfare for longer than five years.

… snip …

My research shows that, on average, women who ever use welfare will receive assistance for about six years and current recipients will receive assistance for about thirteen years.

… snip …

Thus, recipients who spend long periods of time on the welfare rolls are primarily women with limited job prospects. In fact, the employability of those who are most likely to reach a five-year time limit does not look especially promising.



From 1995, http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/welfare/testimony-0395.shtml :


Over the past 25 years, the number of female-headed families almost tripled. In 1965, there were 2.8 million female-headed families with children, compared to 8.2 million in 1992. If the nation had had the same proportion of female-headed households in 1985 as in 1959, there would have been about 5.2 million fewer persons in poverty. According to a special Census Bureau report, the poverty rate for black families would have been 20 percent in 1980, rather than the actual 29 percent, if black family composition had remained what it was in 1970.

… snip …

Out-of-wedlock births and divorces impoverish hundreds of thousands of American families. The median income for female-headed families is about one-third that of intact families. In 1993, the median family income for children living with both parents was $43,578. For children living with their mothers only, however, median family income was $12,073.

… snip …

These demographic differences between unmarried and divorced women translate into dramatically different rates of AFDC utilization. A much higher proportion of unwed mothers go on welfare than do divorced mothers. According to AEI's Nick Eberstadt, almost three- fifths of children born out of wedlock in the United States were on AFDC in 1982, compared to just under a third of children of divorced mothers. In fact, children of never-married mothers are three times more likely to be on welfare than are children of divorced mothers.


Again, racism isn't the black communities real problem. And just throwing more welfare money at it obviously isn't the solution.


I said I didn't believe marriage was some "magic solution".

Well anything that might fix the mess liberals have created now certainly qualifies as "magic" in my book. :D

Certainly if two responsible mature adults have a child, marriage is certainly a reasonable solution but if two irresponsible and immature children have a child then marriage for the sake of marriage is not the appropriate solution imo..

You're just repeating your canard rather than addressing the facts that have been pointed out to you … oh that's right … you couldn't be bothered to read what I linked in Ann Coulter's book. :rolleyes:

And what extraordinary and revolutionary policies does the Right have? I wait with baited breath.

Wow! You really haven't been paying any attention during this discussion, have you? :rolleyes:

Well like I said, I'm not going to beat my head against a stonewall.

Quote:
Well name a few. Let's see if you're right.

Julian Bond himself for one.

LOL! So you are claiming that the black community as a whole already believes what I quoted Bond saying … that he's merely a reflection of the black community? Well if that's the case, the black community is in a lot more trouble than even I feared.

John Lewis.

You mean John Lewis in the Congressional Black Caucus … the same John Lewis who was involved in the bogus claims of N-words and spitting when a few Black Caucus members and staff decided take a provoking walk through Tea Party members protesting the health care debate? The same John Lewis who was offered a check for $10K, payable to the United Negro College Fund, if he'd just take a lie detector test regarding his claims about the incident and pass it? The same John Lewis who refused to take the test and *win* that $10K for a worthy black cause? The same John Lewis who a few years ago compared republicans to Nazis and who said McCain and Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" during the Presidential campaign and then linked them with George Wallace? Really? :rolleyes:

I'm no fan of Wright. I believe he's trapped in the 1950's and 60's mentality of millitant Civil Rights activism against the white anti-black establishment that has diminished immensely.

And Julian Bond and John Lewis aren't … even though many of their statements are just as inflammatory?

I don't know if you're a aware but Bond is a Civil Rights activist. His statements are inline with his job description.

So that's your excuse for exaggerations and lies? I see. :rolleyes:

I imagine you believe civil rights activism is race baiting by design.

There you go with another strawman. :rolleyes:

No more fiery then what you claim about Democrats and blacks.

What I say about democrats and blacks is absolutely true. I say them not to hurt either. But hopefully help some to see how they are being controlled and mislead by democrat and black leaders.


Quote:
Then you haven't been paying much attention. Long before Glen Beck entered the TV world, the "social justice" philosophy was being identified for what it is … a code word for communism. It has it's foundations in the writings of Brazilian Marxist/socialist, Paolo Freire. Read this to learn a little about that: http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13978 "Social Justice: Code for Communism".

Long before Beck got his Fox News show, Obama's communist associates were promoting "social justice". Remember Mike Klonksy? His father was a communist who was convicted in the 1950s of advocating the forcible overthrow of the United States government. Well like father, like son. Mike is a marxist who was one of the few allowed to visit Red China before it opened it's doors to the world. Really hardcore. He is also someone that Obama has maintained a continuing relationship for more than a decade. During the Chicago Anneburg Challenge, which Obama and little "c" communist Bill Ayers co-chaired, he was handed the lion's share of the money to teach America's children … presumably about "social justice", which is his number one issue. Klonsky was given a webpage on Obama's Presidential campaign website promoting … guess what … "social justice". It was one of the few webpages that Michelle Obama's web page linked. Only when his communist affiliations (which Obama had to know about given his decade long history with Klonsky before that) were noticed by conservatives did both Klonsky's page and Michelle's link to it quietly disappear. I think the story of Klonsky and Obama's relationship is far from meaningless … especially in the context of "social justice". Just as the story of Obama and Bill Ayers, another big "social justice" advocate, is far from meaningless. You just haven't been paying attention.

Bull .

Are you claiming that any fact I stated above is false? Because unless you are and can prove it, the only BS I see being spouted here was your suggestion that the only place I could have derived a concern about "social justice" is by listening to Glen Beck.

The Right has been demonizing liberals as communist

I don't need to "demonize" anyone as communist. The folks I mentioned above ADMIT they were/are communists. Or are you suggesting that being communist, and associating with communists, is no big deal?

You can't decide yourself if Obama is a communist or a socialist.

Well pardon me, but the definition of the two is blurred. Marx himself said that socialism is merely a step on the way to communism. What's more worthy of :p is the refusal by people like you to acknowledge that Obama is one or the other, given the unparalleled number of associations he has with socialists and communists, and his rhetoric over the years which certainly matches one or the other ideology or a mix of them.

So your contention is that these programs shouldn't be recreated because they're too expensive?

You aren't listening. Not only are they very expensive (as government programs invariably are) but they don't address anything but a narrow portion of the problem. Even if another 20 schools are opened with 1200 students each, the total number of students who will be addressed by this program (assuming all the other factors can also be put into effect to make it work) would be a drop in the bucket compared to the number of students who are not graduating from the 50 largest public school districts.

Surely a similar program can be institued without using the same amount of resources.

And now you are just handwaving. Sure, such a successful program is possible. The private sector has done it several times. So has the Catholic Church. But the secular left (and it's unions) want nothing to do with either, it appears. :D

Now that's a strawman if i've ever seen it. For one, I compared redneck to uncle tom. Not the N word.

Fine. I guess I just got confused because in the sentence before you did that, you wrote "Regardless of which word he used, In the context he used it in, it's not "racist" by a long shot."

Also my point was that both words have racial connotations but aren't racist as your making the word "uncle tom" seem.

Red neck has no racial connotations. As several of us have tried to point out to you, it has economic connotations. But Uncle Tom most definitely does have racial connotations. Blacks don't seem to call a white person an Uncle Tom. They reserve that for blacks. So it's clearly got something to do with race. :D

[Lurker]

Oh … so now local politics don't matter? :D

I don't know. That is my point. You know, causation/correlation.

Well if that's the case then Washington DC schools, which spend close to $25,000 per student (a point I've proven many times on previous threads), should have an astounding graduation rate. (...) How do you explain that, Lurker?

Well first off I would say my point went completely over your head. When I said economics I did not mean the amount spent, I meant the economic background of the student.

Seriously, Lurker, if economics is really what matters, then why (http://blog.bestandworststates.com/2009/01/29/state-rankings-on-education-spending.aspx) do students at Utah schools, which spend the least in the US per public school student, get higher SAT scores than say Vermont, which spends the most per student on average? In fact, the highest SAT scores in the US come from Iowa which only spends at the national average (i.e., 25th place). And the worst SAT scores come from Maine which spends the 5th most. Is economics the explanation? :D

Hmm, interesting. Are we talking SAT scores now instead of grad rates? It is hard to keep up with you as you keep changing metrics to suit your conclusion. I would posit that comparing SAT scores may be an imperfect measure of comparison as the population that takes the SAT may be different state to state.

[Lurker]

I suggest you should have done a browser search first.
(...) Assuming a straight line decrease between the two dates means that in 1983 there would have been about the 33,000 black farmers in 1983, just like the first source I cited indicated.

So Lurker, how come 86,000 claims were filed? Hmmmmmm? :D

Dude, you totally FAILED in this homework assignment. Again, the time period of the lawsuit is from 1983 to 1997. Think for a moment, BAC. You cannot take a snapshot of any given year and say that is the amount of claimants. Over a 14 year period people go in and out of a profession. That is the key.

[varwoche]

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/08/stunner-pelosis-supporters-and-allies-created-bush-hitler-ads-during-2004-election/ Broken link.

I'm dubious. The only Bush/Hitler ad that I'm aware of was the one created by some random bozo that was submitted to moveon as part of a public contest. (Which was quickly removed by moveon I might add.)

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

LOL! Is that all you were doing? Just asking an innocent question to find out what I thought? Sorry, but you and I both know that's not all you were doing. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would you? Perhaps you thought you could lead our audience into thinking I believe conservatives bare no blame for the current status of public education … by couching it in the form of a question? Well I object, your honor. :D

He doesn't have to, your refusal to answer or drop the bile-laden snark says more about your views than he ever could.

If you are half as smart as you appear, you don't honestly think I think the past has no implications on the future, so why do you ask the question? My question to you is why have Japanese Americans been relatively successful post-WW2 compared to blacks? Do you think there was no discrimination against the Japanese after WW2? Do you think the Japanese came out of the internment camps loaded with money and land? Just curious?

Non-sequitor. You are aware that institutional and otherwise legal discrimination of blacks didn't end until almost two-decades after the Japanese were released, right? For Christ's sake, we still had segregated units in WWII. You might as well claim that German-Americans should be as bad off as the black population because of the meager amount of discrimination they faced during WWI. For that matter, do you have any evidence that the temporary discrimination the Japanese faced (and on a scale much smaller than blacks, Native Americans, and other groups discriminated against have ever faced in the US) would have the sort of effect that hundreds of years of slavery followed by decades upon decades of forced poverty and a society which not only legalized but encouraged racism and discriminatory policy against blacks would have?

It works fine on my computer. Perhaps your computer or browser is broken. Don't tell me, you've got a PC? Try a Mac and Safari, instead. It's a wonderful experience. :D

Mac and Safari don't link to a better internet reserved for people permanently attached to Steve Jobs teat, you know. Your link works fine for me on my PC and Internet Explorer 8 browser, maybe you should stop and consider that perhaps the website was down at that point in time before harping on about the superiority of Apple products and their malware that they spam through iTunes.

[BeAChooser]

When I said economics I did not mean the amount spent, I meant the economic background of the student.

And what exactly does that have to do with the ability of the child to learn, to be taught? The fact is that private schools and catholic schools have proven they can take children from poor minority communities and succeed with them ... for far less cost than what the public school system spends. It's not about the *economics* of the student, or the money spent by the schools, it's about the way they are taught and what is expected of them. Which is a lesson that the liberals supporting the public school system can't seem to learn.

Are we talking SAT scores now instead of grad rates? It is hard to keep up with you as you keep changing metrics to suit your conclusion.

I'll bet you the graduation rates at schools with higher SAT scores is higher than schools with lower SAT schools. What should we wager? :D

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I suggest you should have done a browser search first.
(...) Assuming a straight line decrease between the two dates means that in 1983 there would have been about the 33,000 black farmers in 1983, just like the first source I cited indicated. So Lurker, how come 86,000 claims were filed? Hmmmmmm?

Dude, you totally FAILED in this homework assignment. Again, the time period of the lawsuit is from 1983 to 1997. Think for a moment, BAC. You cannot take a snapshot of any given year and say that is the amount of claimants. Over a 14 year period people go in and out of a profession. That is the key.


No, DUDE, it is YOU who has failed both history and logic.

It is YOU who needs to think *for a moment*.

We know, using sources like this: http://www.agri-pulse.com/uploaded/20100527%20Pigford.pdf, http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS20430.pdf and http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06469r.pdf …

- that just 3 farmers sued in Pigford I representing a class of 641 black farmers.

- that to be eligible for Pigford I, a black had to have "farmed or attempted to farm" between January 1981 and December 31, 1996, had to have applied to USDA for farm credit or program benefits believing that he or she was discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of race, and had to have made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1, 1997.

- that the court noted that 15,000 to 20,000 farmers were estimated to be members of the class.

- that in 1997, when Pigford I was approved, it was predicted (by then Agriculture Secretary Glickman) that about 2000-3000 would qualify for payment in the class action suit.

- that there ended up being about 22,500 Track A claims heard of which about 16,000 (69%) were approved, as of May 11, 2010, receiving about $1 billion total in awards. There were also 172 eligible Track B claimants, of which Sherrod's New Communities was one.

- that under the original consent decree, claimants were to file their claim no later than October 12, 1999. The Court extended the deadline to September 15, 2000 for claimants who could show that “extraordinary circumstances,” such as damages incurred from a hurricane or a medical problem prevented them from doing so on-time.

- that another 73,800 claims were filed under the late filing process of which about 66,000 were received before Sept 15, 2000. It's claimed that because those cases were late they were not allowed to proceed, and according to the Black Farmers Claims website, 58,000 of those claimants didn't have their cases resolved because they failed to meet the "extraordinary circumstances" test.

So, all in all, we know that about 88,000 claims were filed before Sept 15, 2000 for discrimination taking place between 1981 through 1996 under Pigford I. Another 8,000 were filed after that deadline for a total of 96,000 claims. That's pretty amazing considering they initially estimated there would be a few thousand to a few tens of thousands. Don't you think?

Now before continuing, ask yourself why they thought there would only be about 2000-20000 claims, Lurker? Do you imagine they just pulled that number out of thin air? Or could they have had good reason to believe that? Doesn't that seem likely?

In the event you do insist on claiming that there were legitimately 96,000 black farmers who "farmed or attempted to farm" between 1981 and 1996, and who applied for USDA loans and were turned down due to race (and surely not every black farm in the country met all three conditions in which case there must have been many more black farms and farmers than that), let's see if we can determine if that claim is remotely logical.

First, according to Appendix 3 of http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/rr194.pdf , the official USDA census said there were

33,250 black farms in 1982,
22,940 black farms in 1987,
18,816 black farms in 1992, and
18,451 black farms in 1997.

Assuming there was a constant 23,000 black farms during the period (a generous assumption), even if there was 100% turnover (a generous assumption) every 5 years (a generous assumption), and 100% of them had tried and failed to get USDA loans (unlikely), there still wouldn't have been enough farmers to add up to the 88,000 claimed, much less 96,000. So you get a F on your homework, Lurker. Unless you can prove that 100% of black owned farms do fail, that they all fail within about 4 years of starting, and that all of them request USDA loans and are turned down. But I'll bet you can't and that you won't even try. :D

Furthermore, since it's unlikely that having failed once, the same set of farmers would have tried again and again (somehow getting the money to start over), the only possible way that there could be 86,000 legitimate claimants is if tens of thousands of relatively wealthy urban blacks moved out to the country during the 80s and 90s and bought farms. Now I've heard of white flight but is there ANY evidence that black flight … to the country … occurred, Lurker? Any at all? Because unless you can offer some, you get a F-. :D

Next, we know that this last May the democrat controlled congress approved another $1.15 billion to settle what is expected to be (according to liberal sources) another 80,000 claims by *supposed* black farmers from that time period. John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association, estimated about half of those 80,000 *farmers* will get an award. So now, all told, we are up to about 100,000 claims for discrimination to black farmers. And unless you can find the logic to explain another 10000+ black farmers in addition to the above, you get an F--. :D

Sure looks like this has the makings of a huge abuse of the system, folks.

Now mind you, I'm not saying that there weren't a lot of Black farmers who were discriminated against by the USDA and deserved compensation … probably more than they actually got. I'm saying that the way this was handled opened up the possibility of blacks in large numbers gaming the system and this appears to be what happened (and is still happening).

We now know that the USDA has been unwilling to release information that might resolve some of the allegations of fraud that have been made. When Agri-Pulse attempted to verify an allegation via a FOIA request by asking USDA to provide the names and locations of individuals who had received payments, "the agency denied access to the Pigford information, citing an 'unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'"

How convenient. You get to take public money yet keep your name secret. Could that be because Obama, Holder and Vilsack are up to their necks in this scam? That it's not about farmers who were discriminated against, but a means of getting *reparations* to the any black who can play the system? That would be so Cloward-Piven, would it not? ;)

[BeAChooser]

I'm dubious. The only Bush/Hitler ad that I'm aware of was the one created by some random bozo that was submitted to moveon as part of a public contest.

Ok, I checked further and it looks like you are right … as far as an *ad* making that connection being run by democrats. But …

http://www.therightperspective.org/2010/05/01/a-short-history-of-liberals-using-the-nazi-card/

[BeAChooser]

You are aware that institutional and otherwise legal discrimination of blacks didn't end until almost two-decades after the Japanese were released, right?

I'm also aware that 2 decades ago, Japanese in this country were already doing quite well economically and socially. So in the same amount of time as blacks have had since 1964, they not only recovered from having almost all their assets and belongings forceably taken away from them, but managed to overcome the intense hatred of Japanese that the cruel fighting and attrocities of WW2 engendered in the American people. Hatred that persists even to this day amongst certain Americans. And they did it without trillions of dollar in government help.

For that matter, do you have any evidence that the temporary discrimination the Japanese faced (and on a scale much smaller than blacks, Native Americans, and other groups discriminated against have ever faced in the US) would have the sort of effect that hundreds of years of slavery followed by decades upon decades of forced poverty and a society which not only legalized but encouraged racism and discriminatory policy against blacks would have?

I'm going to just pass on dissecting the many victicratic inaccuracies in that statement, and focus instead on this. The economic status of Japanese Americans in post WW2 America was far worse than that of most black Americans in 1964. Also, by 1964, black Americans were certainly viewed better than Japanese Americans were viewed following WW2. So let's call it a level playing field and see what happened next:

http://library.thinkquest.org/20619/Japanese.html


The wartime internment of Japanese, and its lasting economic after-effects reflected themselves in occupational declines among Japanese Americans after the war. The number of first-generation business owners dropped to half of what it had been in prewar years, with the number of house servants of the same generation more than doubling. Those who became farm laborers in the postwar years was more than triple the prewar percentage and the number of Japanese professionals also declined. But while disastrous economic retrogression struck the first-generation Japanese Americans (Issei), the second generation (Nisei) steamed along at an accelerated rate. As American citizens, American educated- with more years of schooling than whites- the Nisei sought lucrative professions, resulting in the Japanese seldom majoring in liberal arts. 1959 saw the Japanese American income reach the family income of whites, and by 1969, it surpassed the national average in family income by 32 percent. The trend continued, with the 1990 census showing the median family income of Japanese Americans to be 45 percent higher than the median family income of native-born, non-Asian Americans. Along with this economic progress came acculturation and social acceptance, including rising rates of intermarriage; by 1980, three-quarters of all Japanese Americans spoke only English.


Now compare that to the black communities approach … nonstop cries of "racism" at every slight (real or imagined); rioting; a general lack of focus on the value of education and even amongst those who do get one, a tendency to major in ethnic studies, community organizing, sports or liberal arts rather than something lucrative; and a widespread movement that seems to desire separation of the races rather than acculturation and acceptance. And where did that get them?

Mac and Safari don't link to a better internet reserved for people permanently attached to Steve Jobs teat, you know.

Odd. I never seem to have any trouble opening links that PC users point me too. The problems all seem to be the other way. That your particular computer didn't have a problem may just be a function of your particular computer. See, that's one of the problems with the PC world. A lack of standardization. ;)

consider that perhaps the website was down at that point in time

I suppose that's a possibility. Although I checked the website just 2 hours after Juniversal posted and it was working for me. Guess we'll have to wait to hear from him whether it's still down for him. :D


and their malware


PS. I also have NO PROBLEM with viruses. How about you? And years later my computer is still running just as fast as the day I bought it. Is yours? ;)

I know, I know. The one thing you never do is insult the other guy's computer. But I couldn't resist. So all of the above is just good-natured kidding. Don't take it so serious. :D

[Lurker]

And what exactly does that have to do with the ability of the child to learn, to be taught?


Dude, are you serious? You don't think the socio-economic background has any effect on the ability of a child to learn? Really? Do I have to bother googling it to link to a study? I wonder what the quality of pre-K education/preparation kids of middle to upper class backgrounds get versus those from lower class backgrounds.


The fact is that private schools and catholic schools have proven they can take children from poor minority communities and succeed with them ... for far less cost than what the public school system spends. It's not about the *economics* of the student, or the money spent by the schools, it's about the way they are taught and what is expected of them. Which is a lesson that the liberals supporting the public school system can't seem to learn.
I would say it is a mix of the two. Anyway, I'd love to see your sources on that. Not that I don't think they exist, but I am just interested.


I'll bet you the graduation rates at schools with higher SAT scores is higher than schools with lower SAT schools. What should we wager? :D
You are probably correct. Then again, SAT scores are an entity to themselves. There is no guarantee that SAT scores are truly comparable year to year, for example. Also, some schools encourage SATS more than others.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I'm also aware that 2 decades ago, Japanese in this country were already doing quite well economically and socially.

This has what to do with the fact that our government was practicing a form of anti-black institutional racism as far off as two decades after World War II? :confused:

So in the same amount of time as blacks have had since 1964, they not only recovered from having almost all their assets and belongings forceably taken away from them, but managed to overcome the intense hatred of Japanese that the cruel fighting and attrocities of WW2 engendered in the American people. Hatred that persists even to this day amongst certain Americans. And they did it without trillions of dollar in government help.

Are you kidding me? Are you really going to sit here and tell me that what the Japanese had to endure during WWII was worse than what blacks had to endure for hundreds of years in this country? Instead of responding to your next copy-paste quote that you picked up off the first google hit, I'm just going to respond to all of this nonsense at once.

No one told you about the massive movement for reparations following World War II did they? And I suppose no one told you that they got them either? From 1948 to 1999 the US government gave literally billions of dollars to the victims of these internment camps. Clearly, the US government and society at large wasn't looking down on the Japanese nearly as much as they were the black population. True, at least one politician lost his office for publically apologizing to the Japanese. But that's still one cherry out of the entire bunch that you're gleefully ignoring. Somewhat shocking, I'm sure, but the very thing you're decrying may have actually helped boost the Japanese population. Not to mention that the Japanese didn't have to suffer long following WWII. As your own link mentioned, Japanese-Americans rebounded quickly following WWII and the Civil Rights movement was just around the corner. Clearly the mindset for racial equality and social justice (GASP! COMMIES!) had already been planted, the Japanese never had to face anything like the Jim Crowe laws following WWII.

Now compare that to the black communities approach … nonstop cries of "racism" at every slight (real or imagined); rioting; a general lack of focus on the value of education and even amongst those who do get one, a tendency to major in ethnic studies, community organizing, sports or liberal arts rather than something lucrative; and a widespread movement that seems to desire separation of the races rather than acculturation and acceptance. And where did that get them?

You stay classy BAC :rolleyes:

Odd. I never seem to have any trouble opening links that PC users point me too. The problems all seem to be the other way. That your particular computer didn't have a problem may just be a function of your particular computer. See, that's one of the problems with the PC world. A lack of standardization. ;)

I have a magic PC that connects to an internet made especially for me, gotcha.

I suppose that's a possibility. Although I checked the website just 2 hours after Juniversal posted and it was working for me. Guess we'll have to wait to hear from him whether it's still down for him. :D

You're right, far more likely that we're connecting to a special internet that only shows all of the websites to us.

PS. I also have NO PROBLEM with viruses. How about you? And years later my computer is still running just as fast as the day I bought it. Is yours? ;)

The only reason anyone would write a virus for Mac is if you wanted to take down a gradeschool computer lab. But no, I don't have virus problems because I'm an informed PC owner. You, however, are using that lovely little piece of malware Apple was caught trying to shove down our throats through iTunes.

[Lurker]

No, DUDE, it is YOU who has failed both history and logic.

Hmm, YOU were the one citing one year's population of farmers and using that as the number that should be represented in the lawsuit for a timespan of 15 years. I just showed you why your logic was totally faulty. Now you want to backtrack and misrepresent what you wrote and do a whole lot of handwaving but it does not negate your initial error.

I don't doubt the stats you posted. I was not here defending the judgement, nor the numbers used. I just jumped in when I saw you make a huge error in logic (or math, however you want to look at it). Go back and look at my posts on this topic and you will see I am correct.

Instead of bluster, why don't you just say, "Hey, a one year population is inappropriate for a 15 year term lawsuit." No big deal.

[BeAChooser]

Dude, are you serious? You don't think the socio-economic background has any effect on the ability of a child to learn? Really?

http://www.capenet.org/benefits4.html

Private schools are racially, ethnically, and economically diverse. Twenty-three percent of private school students are students of color; twenty-eight percent are from families with annual incomes under $50,000


And those percentages are about the same as in public schools. So by your reasoning, private schools must be taking many students that would end up doing poor in public school. But do they do just as poorly in a private venue? From the same source,

Private school students from low socio-economic backgrounds are more than three times more likely than comparable public school students to attain a bachelor’s degree by their mid-20s.

In other words, private schools must be taking students that the public schools would fail to help, according to you due to their minority and socio-economic background, and turn them into successes instead. :D

Do I have to bother googling it to link to a study?

Why don't I.

http://www.heritage.org/research/urbanissues/bg1128.cfm


In a study published in 1990, for example, the Rand Corporation analyzed big-city high schools to determine how education for low income minority youth could be improved. It looked at 13 public, private, and Catholic high schools in New York City that attracted minority and disadvantaged youth. Of the Catholic school students in these schools, 75 to 90 percent were black or Hispanic. The study found that:

- The Catholic high schools graduated 95 percent of their students each year, while the public schools graduated slightly more 50 percent of their senior class;

- Over 66 percent of the Catholic school graduates received the New York State Regents diploma to signify completion of an academically demanding college preparatory curriculum, while only about 5 percent of the public school students received this distinction;

- 85 percent of the Catholic high school students took the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), compared with just 33 percent of the public high school students;

- The Catholic school students achieved an average combined SAT score of 803, while the public school students' average combined SAT score was 642; and

- 60 percent of the Catholic school black students scored above the national average for black students on the SAT, and over 70 percent of public school black students scored below the same national average.


Sorry, Lurker, but it looks to me like it's the democrat controlled public schools that make kids poor students. The poor students are the victims of poor schools, rather then the schools being the victims of poor students. Even uneducated parents can apparently do a better job than public schools …

http://newsblaze.com/story/2007100403040200003.cc/topstory.html


TORONTO, ONTARIO - (Marketwire - Oct. 4, 2007) - Home schooling appears to improve the academic performance of children from families with low levels of education, according to a report on home schooling released today by independent research organization The Fraser Institute.

"The evidence is particularly interesting for students who traditionally fall through the cracks in the public system," said Claudia Hepburn, co-author of Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream, 2nd edition and Director of Education Policy with The Fraser Institute.

"Poorly educated parents who choose to teach their children at home produce better academic results for their children than public schools do. One study we reviewed found that students taught at home by mothers who never finished high school scored a full 55 percentage points higher than public school students from families with comparable education levels."


:D

[Lurker]

http://www.capenet.org/benefits4.html



And those percentages are about the same as in public schools. So by your reasoning, private schools must be taking many students that would end up doing poor in public school. But do they do just as poorly in a private venue? From the same source,



In other words, private schools must be taking students that the public schools would fail to help, according to you due to their minority and socio-economic background, and turn them into successes instead. :D

My friend, I think I have had this conversation with you before. Private schools demographics are not the same as public school demographics. AS I have told you before which you have failed to absorb, the very fact that someone has to CHOOSE to go to a private school has certain implications. The first being that the person most probably cares about their eduction more than their peers. Either the student himself cares more or the parents and either way, the chance of success increases because of it. I don't know how many times I have to tell you this.

Thanks for the links, I'll address the rest later.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I'm also aware that 2 decades ago, Japanese in this country were already doing quite well economically and socially.

This has what to do with the fact that our government was practicing a form of anti-black institutional racism as far off as two decades after World War II?


Oh well, I tried folks. Here you see the product of a modern education … one that apparently encouraged KF to admire communists. :rolleyes:

Are you kidding me? Are you really going to sit here and tell me that what the Japanese had to endure during WWII was worse than what blacks had to endure for hundreds of years in this country?

Are you kidding me?

Do you think many of the blacks living in the US in 1964 had or have endured what Japanese-Americans experienced during WW2 and the decades after? They had everything taken away from them (their homes, businesses, belonging, assets) and were literally put in concentration camps for 3 years. These camps consisted of poorly-constructed barracks surrounded by barbed wire, sentry posts and armed guards in the middle of nowhere. And this all happened without charges or a hearing.

These camps were no picnic. There were documented cases of guards shooting people who tried to walk outside the fences. They were overcrowded with families as large as a dozen living in two small, drafty rooms with a coal stove (winters were cold in many camps) and cots for beds. They were unsanitary (being constructed right next to open sewers). Toilets were unpartitioned with no privacy. The meals that were served were poor (a budget of 45 cents daily per capita), leading to considerable malnutrition. No effort was made to provide entertainment or education to the children. But somehow the internees made do with what they had.

And then, after the war ended, they were given little to no assistance when they were dumped back on the streets, where they now faced a populace that was absolutely furious at what the Japanese had done during WW2. That hatred was engendered not only by first hand experience but WW2 propaganda like this:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/d-day-invasion-20.jpg&imgrefurl=http://history.howstuffworks.com/world-war-ii/d-day-invasion15.htm&usg=__cpos-uenNuRzNs_VpgzOQOwdXdc=&h=501&w=400&sz=40&hl=en&start=36&tbnid=iIFvGs4TG3cz_M:&tbnh=158&tbnw=141&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djapanese%2Bagainst%2Bjapanese%2Bafter %2Bworld%2Bwar%2B2%2Bamerica%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26 client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DG%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1424%2 6bih%3D861%26tbs%3Disch:10%2C710&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=461&ei=prZUTPC1K4j0tgOf5_zaAg&page=2&ndsp=26&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:36&tx=61&ty=129&biw=1424&bih=861

Here are some images that reflect the post-war hatred:

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/matthigh/2073630895/

http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/BE071994.html

and those feelings were pretty widespread and intense. I know seniors who even now dislike Japanese because of their WW2 experiences.

Furthermore, even prior to WW2 there was considerable discrimination against the Japanese in America. Do you know that in 1913 several states passed laws preventing Japanese immigrants from owning land and even becoming citizens. There were laws preventing them from marrying outside their race and forcing them to attend segregated schools. A law passed in 1924 even put an end to Japanese immigration entirely.

Now contrast that with the situation of blacks in 1964, when about half had already joined the middle class, could own land, could vote, and were increasingly finding a place in America. Sure, the Civil Rights Act was needed … but the welfare laws were a HUGE mistake.

No one told you about the massive movement for reparations following World War II did they?


What "massive" reparations?

First, it is estimated that the Japanese-Americans who were tossed into those camps lost billions of dollars in assets. And when the war ended, if they didn't have $500 dollars (and many didn't), all they were given was $25 dollars and a train ticket home. Many had no home to go to anymore.

From 1948 to 1999 the US government gave literally billions of dollars to the victims of these internment camps. Clearly, the US government and society at large wasn't looking down on the Japanese nearly as much as they were the black population.

You are completely misrepresenting what actually happened.

Prior to 1988, the only "reparations" was the 1948 "American Japanese Claims Act". But by the time the act was passed, the IRS had destroyed most of the records of the detainees so they had no way to prove claims. As result, only $37 million dollars was approved and disbursed … that's less than $350 per internee.

In 1988 Congress passed legislation authorizing reparations and eventually gave about $1.6 billion to Japanese-Americans who had suffered internment, or their heirs, but that was long after the Japanese-American community has recovered economically and become the wealthiest group on America.

To suggest that $37 million dollars distributed amongst 110,000 internees is comparable to the TRILLIONS of dollars handed out to blacks in the late 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s is just plain silly.

Not to mention that the Japanese didn't have to suffer long following WWII. As your own link mentioned, Japanese-Americans rebounded quickly following WWII and the Civil Rights movement was just around the corner. Clearly the mindset for racial equality and social justice (GASP! COMMIES!) had already been planted, the Japanese never had to face anything like the Jim Crowe laws following WWII.

Again, I'll just point out the obvious.

In 20 years, the Japanese went from essentially having nothing in a country where large segments of the populace hated them intensely, to being one of the wealthiest groups and widely accepted by people of entirely different skin color. And they did it without government help but by focusing on hard work and education … not by whining that this or that injustice was racist.

Contrast that with the black community which in 1964, was relatively well off compared to 1945 Japanese Americans. Here we are 45 years later, having spent upwards of ten trillion dollars on social welfare programs of which most were aimed at blacks, and the black community is less well off now then in 1964. And the reason is obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense.

The black community didn't emphasize education (and in many ways stigmatized it), focused on the wrong types education (liberal ethnic studies and community organizing versus professions like doctor and sciences), made themselved dependent rather than independent (chose socialism over capitalism), destroyed the stigma of illegitimacy and the institution of marriage , and antagonized everyone with constant claims of racism … even when racism was clearly not a factor. The biggest mistake of all was latching onto the empty promises of white democrats leaders and a host of black shuckster "ministers".

You stay classy BAC

I'm just being honest to the black community. Whereas you are not.

The only reason anyone would write a virus for Mac is if you wanted to take down a gradeschool computer lab.

It must have really hurt to watch Apple become the largest technology company in the world. :D

[Arisia]

Any real proof that 'Republican controlled public schools' do any better than 'democrat controlled public schools' for similar size/resource/demographic districts?

[BeAChooser]

Private schools demographics are not the same as public school demographics.

I just supplied two sources that indicate you are wrong. Sure, there are upper scale private schools that draw from a different demographics than public schools, but I wasn't giving you examples of that. Catholic schools in general draw from the same pool as public schools. You can't have the same percentages of minorities and poor in private schools if they aren't drawing from much the same demographics, in general.

Here is another source disproving your assertion that socio-economic status is what determines student performance:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3459396.html



Early test score studies were not carefully designed to yield precise estimates, but according to test score results from four recently conducted randomized experiments in New York City; Washington, D.C.; Dayton, Ohio; and Charlotte, North Carolina, African American students from low-income families who switch from a public to a private school do considerably better after two years than students who do not.

… snip …

[b]Students from all racial and ethnic groups are more likely to go to college after attending a Catholic school, but the effects are the greatest for urban minorities. The probability of graduating from college rises from 11 to 27 percent if such a student attends a Catholic high school.

The University of Chicago study confirms results from two other analyses that show the positive effects of attendance at Catholic schools on high school completion and college enrollment for low-income and minority students. University of Wisconsin professor John Witte concludes that studies of private schools "indicate a substantial private school advantage in terms of completing high school and enrolling in college, both very important events in predicting future income and well-being. Moreover . . . the effects were most pronounced for students with achievement test scores in the bottom half of the distribution."


Just compare that to the typical large city public school system outcomes. Take Obama's home city, Chicago, as an example.

http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/feb/25/news/chi-dropout_25feb25


February 25, 2008

Nearly half of Chicago public school 9th graders who started high school in the last seven years have dropped out without earning a high school diploma, according to a study to be released Monday.


And what happens to them once they leave the public school system?

http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/news_citations/042106_chicagotribune.html


Of every 100 freshmen entering a Chicago public high school, only about six will earn a bachelor's degree by the time they're in their mid-20s, according to a first-of-its-kind study released Thursday by the Consortium on Chicago School Research.


That's a disgrace, when nationally the rate of public school students entering college after graduation is around 60-70%. But it's even more disgraceful, when you consider that the percent of students going to college after graduating from private schools is in the 90-95% range (http://privateschool.about.com/od/choosingaschool/qt/comparison.htm ).

You are wrong, Lurker. There is study after study showing that kids that were clearly on a failure track in the public schools were saved when they moved into the private track (or even the homeschooling track). Just like everything else (be it health care, government spending, taxes, the environment, immigration, upholding the laws, whatever), the democrats controlling the system now feel they don't have to listen to the facts, or what the people have decided works and want. They just go on blindly protecting their unions, salaries, benefits and power base. Besides, it's probably in their interest to keep the bulk of public students dumbed down so they'll vote democrat regardless of logic, facts, economics, self-interest or anything else. They'll end up just like you. :D

[BeAChooser]

Any real proof that 'Republican controlled public schools' do any better than 'democrat controlled public schools' for similar size/resource/demographic districts?

Well why don't you try to point out an example of a "republican controlled public school system"? Lurker tried (post #392), naming Texas, and I ended up showing (post #393) that the graduation rates in Texas are far better than in democrat controlled states, on average. And that's even with liberals still having considerable influence in Texas. :D

[Lurker]

BAc:

This snippet I find interesting. I will have to ponder this for a bit.

"Poorly educated parents who choose to teach their children at home produce better academic results for their children than public schools do. One study we reviewed found that students taught at home by mothers who never finished high school scored a full 55 percentage points higher than public school students from families with comparable education levels."

[Mumbles]

Are you kidding me? Are you really going to sit here and tell me that what the Japanese had to endure during WWII was worse than what blacks had to endure for hundreds of years in this country? Instead of responding to your next copy-paste quote that you picked up off the first google hit, I'm just going to respond to all of this nonsense at once.

I'm a bit reluctant to respond when threads hit the "How come blacks are still behind when Asians are doing so well?" level - the fact that racists treat people differently according to their perceived race is so obvious, that anyone who doesn't understand it is simply not worth talking to. But there's something missing here - namely, Japanese-Americans are, for the most part, recent immigrants, who come here with education, culture, and often wealth intact. The internment camps of the 1940s simply did not effect most families in any way. Black Americans, meanwhile, face routine discrimination in their home country even today - we know that they're strongly disfavored in loans and hiring, as examples - not to mention the centuries of open discrimination that you discussed.

And there are other issues with the supposed statistics - the out of wedlock birthrate among black Americans has been declining for roughly 40 years now (this is usually hidden by using the out of wedlock to *in wedlock* birth ratio). The violence rate has nosedived since Clinton took office.

[Lurker]

I just supplied two sources that indicate you are wrong. Sure, there are upper scale private schools that draw from a different demographics than public schools, but I wasn't giving you examples of that. Catholic schools in general draw from the same pool as public schools. You can't have the same percentages of minorities and poor in private schools if they aren't drawing from much the same demographics, in general.
*sigh*. Again, yuou have missed my point. Let us say you have two familes from a poor socio-economic background that live right next to each other. The default position for each family is public education. I mean, if you sit back and do nothing as a parent your child goes to public school, correct? Family A sits back and their child goes to public school Family B decides to send their child to a private school.

Now, of the two families, which is more likely to have an active parent that cares more about the child's education? I would posit that Family B wins that comparison from a stastical point of view. Knowing that Family B has more active parents, which of the two will probably check up on their child more often, helping with homework, making sure the kid attends classes, going to school, driving them to school, and meeting the teachers and so on? Again, logically it is Family B. Extrapolating this from two families to whole regions we would see that the level of invovlement from parents is going to be higher for those in private school.

THAT is my point. The chances of success is higher for the child attending private school EVEN BEFORE THE CHILD ATTENDS HIS/HER FIRST DAY OF CLASS.

[Lurker]

Well why don't you try to point out an example of a "republican controlled public school system"? Lurker tried (post #392), naming Texas, and I ended up showing (post #393) that the graduation rates in Texas are far better than in democrat controlled states, on average. And that's even with liberals still having considerable influence in Texas. :D

I pointed out Texas as a Republican controlled state, not necessarily one as a failed state. Anyway, look at the states again and you see a mix that belies Republican/Democrat correlation. When you saw that you resorted to city government for some odd reason.

I was not trying to show that "blue" states have better education than "red" states. I was trying to show you that there is no correlation, which I did.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Oh well, I tried folks. Here you see the product of a modern education … one that apparently encouraged KF to admire communists. :rolleyes:

This is actually really amusing BAC. Every single time I’ve responded to you, you bring up the fact that I admire a handful of communists. Either you consider this a character flaw akin to extreme racism/sexism and are, by extension of that fact, attempting to poison the well each and every time I respond to you or you’re seriously bothered by this fact. Probably both. In any case though, I am endlessly amused by how much it bothers you. ;)

Are you kidding me?

:words:

My, my, my the wall of text surely is your favorite way to discuss anything. Must really irk you that I never denied that the Japanese had it rough during and after WWII.

Now contrast that with the situation of blacks in 1964, when about half had already joined the middle class, could own land, could vote, and were increasingly finding a place in America. Sure, the Civil Rights Act was needed … but the welfare laws were a HUGE mistake.

I don't follow your "logic" here BAC. Blacks were apparently doing spectacularly well for themselves in the 1960's and yet, somehow, giving the poor (which apparently does not include “all” blacks by your own standards) money to help with basic necessities caused the black middle class to erode into poverty. How exactly?

I mean be real here Choosey old pal, if the welfare state is responsible for keeping people in poverty then why did poverty decrease most drastically during expansions of welfare? Prior to the New Deal roughly 56% of Americans were expected to have been in poverty. Granted, the United States righteous capitalist ideals kept it from keeping records of poverty because the government rightfully believed it should not assist those in poverty and they should be left into a world of soul-crushing poverty and starvation so that 56% number is somewhat flimsy.

What "massive" reparations?

First, it is estimated that the Japanese-Americans who were tossed into those camps lost billions of dollars in assets. And when the war ended, if they didn't have $500 dollars (and many didn't), all they were given was $25 dollars and a train ticket home. Many had no home to go to anymore. You are completely misrepresenting what actually happened.

:words:

To suggest that $37 million dollars distributed amongst 110,000 internees is comparable to the TRILLIONS of dollars handed out to blacks in the late 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s is just plain silly.

Well, for starters BAC you’ll notice that I said massive movement and not massive reparations. Second, you’ll also notice that I didn’t argue the economic impact of the reparations was enough to bring Japanese-Americans above the poverty-line but that the fact they received reparations at all was evidence that they weren’t receiving the same sort of discrimination facing blacks. Third, Muggles point caused me to think of something so I did a bit of research and, sure enough, immigration from Asia (especially Japan) increased after WWII. If he is correct, and I’d have to do more research to verify it, then that would completely blow your comparison out of the water.

By the way, you have a citation for the "TRILLIONS" that we've given blacks?

But in any case, the simple fact that they received any redress at all is pretty clear evidence that the population wasn't as against them and determined to make them fail as they were with blacks. As I said, Japanese-Americans didn't have forced segregation and Jim Crowe laws to deal with after WWII. You're attempting to compare hundreds of years of systematic discrimination and repression with a few decades that the Japanese had to endure. They were not forcibly taken from their lands, brought here, enslaved, and then dumped back into society where the government continued to legislate against them even decades after the Civil Rights movement ended.

Again, I'll just point out the obvious.

In 20 years, the Japanese went from essentially having nothing in a country where large segments of the populace hated them intensely, to being one of the wealthiest groups and widely accepted by people of entirely different skin color. And they did it without government help but by focusing on hard work and education … not by whining that this or that injustice was racist.

Contrast that with the black community which in 1964, was relatively well off compared to 1945 Japanese Americans. Here we are 45 years later, having spent upwards of ten trillion dollars on social welfare programs of which most were aimed at blacks, and the black community is less well off now then in 1964. And the reason is obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense.

"Common sense" meaning “whatever agrees with my ideology”. History seems to disagree with you in regards to welfare.

Before 1964, official statistics on poverty did not exist, and it was not the focus of government attention. However, mainstream scholars disagree little over the broad generalizations of decades prior. By one estimate, 56 percent of all American families lived in poverty in the year 1900. (1) The so-called "Roaring 20s" were a period of economic polarization, with less than 1 percent of the population earning a "rich" salary of $100,000 a year, about 15 percent earning a "middle class" income, and about half of all Americans struggling to make ends meet. (2) While investors and stock brokers were enjoying boom times on Wall Street, entire sectors of the economy were depressed: agriculture, coal, railroads, shipyards, textiles and shoes were all in decline. In fact, between 1923 and 1929, the lower 93 percent of the nonfarm population experienced a 4 percent decline in real disposable per capita income. (3) For farmers, it was even worse. During this era, "laissez-faire" philosophies dominated government policy, and welfare programs were virtually nonexistent.

The Great Depression brought much deeper poverty, of course, but almost all the damage was done on Hoover's watch. Under Hoover, the economy shrank an average of -8.4 percent a year; under Roosevelt, it grew an average of 6.4 percent a year until 1940, the year it finally returned to its 1929 level. During this recovery, Roosevelt launched the New Deal, essentially creating the modern American welfare state. Dozens of programs were instituted that redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor. Perhaps the greatest of these was Social Security, which Congress passed in 1935. Prior to Social Security, it was common to see old people starving in the streets after they retired. Social Security largely eliminated this shameful sight. Furthermore, the Social Security Act created Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the program popularly known today as "welfare."

The U.S. emerged from World War II with a supercharged economy. If ever the middle class experienced a Golden Age, this was it; prosperity had never been spread across so much of the population. The poverty rate for the 50s is estimated to have been about 20 percent, still high by today's standards, but a major improvement over the 1920s. Still, with a booming economy, it was easy to forget the bottom 20 percent. Michael Harrington had to write a bestseller entitled The Other America to remind the middle class that not all Americans were enjoying the good times. This book caught the attention of President Kennedy, who was already alarmed by the poverty he had witnessed firsthand on the campaign trail in West Virginia. Consequently, he instructed his Council of Economic Advisors to study the problem and recommend policies.

You can find that article here (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm) and it is fully sourced as well.

The black community didn't emphasize education (and in many ways stigmatized it), focused on the wrong types education (liberal ethnic studies and community organizing versus professions like doctor and sciences), made themselved dependent rather than independent (chose socialism over capitalism), destroyed the stigma of illegitimacy and the institution of marriage , and antagonized everyone with constant claims of racism … even when racism was clearly not a factor. The biggest mistake of all was latching onto the empty promises of white democrats leaders and a host of black shuckster "ministers".

Wow, just wow. After reading this I truly think that there isn’t a right-wing meme that you won’t believe.

I'm just being honest to the black community. Whereas you are not.

Right, whatever you say. :rolleyes:

It must have really hurt to watch Apple become the largest technology company in the world. :D

:newlol No, not really. I’m not a Microsoft fanboy, I just really hate Apple’s business practices. Though, I’d be more impressed with Apple if this was due to more than an over-hyped cell phone that you have to jailbreak in order for it to act like a cell phone.

[Juniversal]

Yes. Falsely claiming your opponent holds a position so you can knock it down. Which is what you tried to do. Several times. :DSo you DO know what a strawman is but apparently you don't know how to properly identify one. Where exactly did I make a "false claim" about your position? I'm waiting. ;)


LOL! Is that all you were doing? Just asking an innocent question to find out what I thought? Sorry, but you and I both know that's not all you were doing. You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer would you? Perhaps you thought you could lead our audience into thinking I believe conservatives bare no blame for the current status of public education … by couching it in the form of a question? Well I object, your honor. :DUmm yes I was. Seems you have a guilty conscience my friend.


If you are half as smart as you appear, you don't honestly think I think the past has no implications on the future, so why do you ask the question? My question to you is why have Japanese Americans been relatively successful post-WW2 compared to blacks? Do you think there was no discrimination against the Japanese after WW2? Do you think the Japanese came out of the internment camps loaded with money and land? Just curious?I asked the question because you objected to me bringing up the past history to explain current day behavior or trends. And to answer your second question internment certainly didn't effect the entire Japansese population and the current population data likely doesn't make a distinction between those who are descended from individuals who suffered internment and those who've recently migrated to the U.S. in suceeding decades.

I'd argue that segregation and other forms of institutionalized discrimination had greater and more substational effects on the black community than internment on the Japanese community. Afterall the black population grew and expanded under the boot of slavery, black codes, Jim Crow, voter literacy test, intimidation (in the form of the KKK, lynchings, cross burnings, church bombings, ect.) and the like. Your comparson is very incongruous.


It works fine on my computer. Perhaps your computer or browser is broken. Don't tell me, you've got a PC? Try a Mac and Safari, instead. It's a wonderful experience. :DSeems we sit on opposite ends of the spectrum on more than just political issues. ;)


Obstinant, stubborn minds, perhaps. What? Have you no comment about the 45% of black children of parents who were middle class in 1968 who are now in the lowest fifth of earners? What happened to them for things to go so wrong at the same time that the nation was shoveling trillions of dollars into anti-poverty programs, many of which were aimed specifically at blacks? And despite decades of economic prosperity in this country overall … prosperity that created millions and millions and millions of new jobs? What went wrong?

Here, let me quote a little more from that link you say you can't access (it's from an essay titled "The Welfare State Versus Values and the Mind" by Andrew Bernstein):I have no clue what happened. There's many factors beyond welfare that likely contributed. I'd agree that welfare hasn't been successful in eliminating poverty or greatly improving the lives of recipents but apparently the poverty rate has declinced over the past several decades.


And what do you think that was, Juniversal? Got a clue? :DSocial unrest? Changing social and political climate?

Question. Do you have statistics that show those aforementioned groups were accounted for in the welfare rolls?


And I'll remark again, you've never heard of NOW?

In 2007 NOW filed suit against the Bush administration seeking to abolish Fathers Day. In speaking on the lawsuit, Andrea Dworkin, one of NOW's longterm members stated "marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." On other occasions she stated marriage is "a legal license to rape" and that one "of the differences between marriage and prostitution is that in marriage you only have to make a deal with one man"? When she died NOW eulogized her, calling her "one of feminism's more rigourous minds and fiercest crusaders." Now there's a liberal pro-marriage institution if there ever one. (sarcasm)Yes. NOW isn't the poster child for a pro-marriage organization. Now where's the Liberal assult on marriage you were talking about? A feminist organization with a leader that condemed marriage does NOT = a "Liberal assualt on marriage" as much as it = "NOW's assault on marriage".


Do they?

From 1996, http://www.urban.org/publications/900288.html




From 1995, http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/welfare/testimony-0395.shtml :Even your artical mentions that as a whole "The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year; 70 percent within two years and almost 90 percent within five years."

Again, racism isn't the black communities real problem. And just throwing more welfare money at it obviously isn't the solution.Yes and I never claimed it was (in either case).


LOL! So you are claiming that the black community as a whole already believes what I quoted Bond saying … that he's merely a reflection of the black community? Well if that's the case, the black community is in a lot more trouble than even I feared.Black community as a whole? No. A sizable portion of the black community? Very possible.


You mean John Lewis in the Congressional Black Caucus … the same John Lewis who was involved in the bogus claims of N-words and spitting when a few Black Caucus members and staff decided take a provoking walk through Tea Party members protesting the health care debate? The same John Lewis who was offered a check for $10K, payable to the United Negro College Fund, if he'd just take a lie detector test regarding his claims about the incident and pass it? The same John Lewis who refused to take the test and *win* that $10K for a worthy black cause? The same John Lewis who a few years ago compared republicans to Nazis and who said McCain and Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" during the Presidential campaign and then linked them with George Wallace? Really? :rolleyes:Yes that John Lewis. ;)


And Julian Bond and John Lewis aren't … even though many of their statements are just as inflammatory?Nope.


There you go with another strawman. :rolleyes:There you go not understanding what a strawman is. :rolleyes:


What I say about democrats and blacks is absolutely true. I say them not to hurt either. But hopefully help some to see how they are being controlled and mislead by democrat and black leaders.Aboslutely true and aboslutely oppinion are synonyms now? :confused:



Are you claiming that any fact I stated above is false? Because unless you are and can prove it, the only BS I see being spouted here was your suggestion that the only place I could have derived a concern about "social justice" is by listening to Glen Beck.Are the arbitrary associations the author made between apparently communist individuals and the word social justice real? Not really. The best he could do to connect Mike Klonksy to communism is through his father. The author doesn't even claim Klonsky is a communist and only succeds at weakly connecting him to the "social justice" herring.

Also are those comparisons any more apt then making a connection between Obama and Hitler by saying "Hitler was also a great speaker" in response to someone stating that Obama is a great speaker? I think not. Are all those who campaign on "social justice" communist? Of course not.


I don't need to "demonize" anyone as communist. The folks I mentioned above ADMIT they were/are communists. Or are you suggesting that being communist, and associating with communists, is no big deal? That really went right over you heard huh? :rolleyes: Demonizing Liberals as communist is one thing. Acknowledging self identifying communist as communist is another.


Well pardon me, but the definition of the two is blurred. Marx himself said that socialism is merely a step on the way to communism. What's more worthy of :p is the refusal by people like you to acknowledge that Obama is one or the other, given the unparalleled number of associations he has with socialists and communists, and his rhetoric over the years which certainly matches one or the other ideology or a mix of them.So your rationale is that someone that holds communist and socialist in high esteem can be described as either a socialist, a communist or both? I hope you'd agree that as a ruler someone can't rule as both a communist AND a socialist?


Fine. I guess I just got confused because in the sentence before you did that, you wrote "Regardless of which word he used, In the context he used it in, it's not "racist" by a long shot."That sentence clearly was in reference to my earlier comparison of negro and the N word. While you managed to compare the N word to red neck.


Red neck has no racial connotations. As several of us have tried to point out to you, it has economic connotations. But Uncle Tom most definitely does have racial connotations. Blacks don't seem to call a white person an Uncle Tom. They reserve that for blacks. So it's clearly got something to do with race. :DRed neck is definitely associated with whites and is percieved as characterizing poor "uncouth" whites. I don't know what world you live in. :confused: I have yet to see a black, Asian, Arab, or hispanic person described as a red neck.

[BeAChooser]

The internment camps of the 1940s simply did not effect most families in any way.

:rolleyes:

Black Americans, meanwhile, face routine discrimination in their home country even today

:rolleyes:

we know that they're strongly disfavored in loans and hiring, as examples - not to mention the centuries of open discrimination that you discussed.

:rolleyes:

As Larry Elder asks …

http://www.creators.com/opinion/larry-elder/blacks-banks-and-institutional-racism.html

the out of wedlock birthrate among black Americans has been declining for roughly 40 years now


LOL! What that data shows is that in total, unmarried black women are having fewer out of wedlock kids than they were 40 years ago. But then so are caucasian women. That data is not saying that fewer of them are having children out of wedlock. On the contrary, that number has dramatically grown from what it was 40 years ago. In 1965, 24 percent of black infants were born to single mothers. In 2010, that number is now over 70 percent. And easy access to welfare and the destigmification of out of wedlock birth are the reason.

The violence rate has nosedived since Clinton took office.


But more important (and relevant to this discussion) …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States


Since 1964 (BAC - when the War On Poverty began), the U.S. crime rate has increased by as much as 350%


Wow, the WOP sure has been a success in preventing crime. Isn't that what liberals claim … that crime is the result of poverty?

As to why the crime rate started falling in the 1990s

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf


Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not

… snip …

Conclusions

Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: increased incarceration, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion. Other factors often cited as important factors driving the decline do not appear to have played an important role: the strong economy, changing demographics, innovative policing strategies, gun laws and increased use of capital punishment.


In other words, it had little if anything to do with WOP spending.

And apparently, the drop in crime hasn't been uniform between ethnicities …

http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-04-02hm.html

blacks, 24 percent of New York City’s population, committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in the city last year

In fact,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/us/29homicide.html


The murder rate among black teenagers has climbed since 2000 even as murders by young whites have scarcely grown or declined in some places, according to a new report.


:D

[BeAChooser]

Let us say you have two familes from a poor socio-economic background that live right next to each other. … snip ... Extrapolating this from two families to whole regions we would see that the level of invovlement from parents is going to be higher for those in private school.


So in other words, by hurting the socio-economic status of people, the War On Poverty has hurt education. I see. :D

And besides (keeping in mind that the following is from Time Magazine, a very left leaning media outlet) …

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html


Oct. 10, 2007

… snip …

It's true that controlling for socioeconomic status (SES) eliminates most of the public-school/private-school differences in achievement-test scores in math, reading, science and history. But even after you control for SES, Catholic schools run by holy orders (not those overseen by the local bishop) turned out to perform better than other schools studied.


So why do Catholic schools do better?

Plus …


While controlling for SES eliminated most public school/private-school differences in achievement test scores, it did not eliminate differences in the most widely used test of developed abilities, the SAT. (As I explained more fully here, developed abilities are those nurtured through schoolwork, reading, engaging a piece of art, and any other activities that spark critical thinking. Developed abilities aren't inborn traits but honed competencies, more akin to athletic skill gained through practice rather than raw IQ. By contrast, achievement tests measure the amount of material students have committed to memory in any particular field.) Combined with high-school grades, SAT scores are the best predictor of how kids will do in their freshman year of college. And the data in the new study shows that private-school students outperform public-school students on the SAT.

Isn't that just because richer private-school kids can afford to be coached more before the SAT? No — remember that this study carefully controlled for socioeconomic status. Rather, it appears private schools do more to develop students' critical-thinking abilities — not just the rote memorization required to do well on achievement tests.


http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/forster200505120815.asp


May 12, 2005

… snip …

This week a new empirical study claiming to show that public schools do a better job than private schools has made a big media splash. But the study is deeply misleading.

… snip …

The main problem is that they use scores from isolated years. That is, they take a snapshot of student achievement rather than tracking achievement over time. While they do take snapshots from different years, they have no way to track students from one snapshot to the next, which is no better in practice than taking just one snapshot.

This is important because if you don’t track students over time, you can’t establish a causal connection between the type of school a student attends (public or private) and test scores. In other words, their data have nothing to say about the relative quality of public and private schools.

A much more likely explanation for the latest study’s results is that when students enter private schools, they tend to have test scores a little lower than other students of their race and socioeconomic status. That seems counterintuitive, because people are used to thinking of private-school students as privileged. And so they are — because of their race and socioeconomic status. But that’s precisely what this study controls for.

In fact, it makes perfect sense that within each racial and socioeconomic group it’s the low performers whose parents will be motivated to make the sacrifices necessary to put them in private schools. What counts is whether those students make better or worse gains over time after they enter private school — and that’s just what this study can’t tell us.

I could go on, but instead I’ll let the authors explain it for themselves. Buried in the back of the study, they write:

NAEP data [the test score set they use] do not allow for examinations of growth in achievement over time, nor do they include information about student movement between school sectors. Therefore, correlations between school sector and achievement are not demonstrably causal. In other words, one cannot conclude from this analysis that public schools are more effective at promoting student growth than private schools.


… snip …

As it happens, there’s a large body of very high-quality research that does allow us to evaluate the causal connection between school type and student achievement, and it overwhelmingly finds that private schools do better. The most convincing evidence comes from seven studies using “random assignment,” the same method used in medical trials. In all seven studies, students who won a random lottery to use a school voucher at a private school had significantly greater test-score gains than similar students who lost the lottery and stayed in public schools.

Differences in socio-economic status don't explain that, Lurker.

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5473-the-private-school-advantage


The Private School Advantage

… snip …

Despite these challenges, the teacher-pupil ratio and the close-knit climate of private schools make them an all-around better bet for kids. Public, or government, schools have been enjoying “bailout” status for decades, with worsening outcomes. It’s time for Americans to start voting with their feet.

[BeAChooser]

I pointed out Texas as a Republican controlled state, not necessarily one as a failed state.

When you asked "do we have the graduation rates for blacks in states like Texas versus a state like Minnesota?", what you clearly were trying to do is claim that the graduation rate for blacks in Texas isn't any higher than in blue states like Minnesota. And I proved you wrong.

[BeAChooser]

Every single time I’ve responded to you, you bring up the fact that I admire a handful of communists.


Well, it does sort of explain things where you are concerned. :D

My, my, my the wall of text surely is your favorite way to discuss anything. Must really irk you that I never denied that the Japanese had it rough during and after WWII.

Wall of text? LOL! It must really irk you to know that I disposed of your argument so easily … in less than 362 words. :D

I don't follow your "logic" here BAC.

Well I tried folks. But I guess logic wasn't one of the things they taught would be communist admirers.

if the welfare state is responsible for keeping people in poverty then why did poverty decrease most drastically during expansions of welfare?

This is false, KF. But then communist admirers never have had trouble spouting falsehoods, have they? Here are the facts, folks.

LBJ announced the WOP in 1964, when the number of people "in poverty" was officially about 35 million and the poverty rate was about 19%. It's true that the number in poverty fell to about 25 million and the poverty rate fell to about 12 percent by 1968. But it took years for WOP spending to really get underway (in fact spending on the program didn't really get going until the Nixon and Ford years). So what caused the poverty rate to drop to 16% in 1965, just one year after LBJ announced the effort?

Could it be that the poverty rate was already headed lower? Well that's exactly what was happening. Just 5 years before the WOP began, the number in poverty was 40 million and the rate was 22%. So in those 5 years, the number in poverty and the poverty rate was falling just as "drastically" as it did in the 5 years after WOP funding actually got underway. And there was no reason to believe it wouldn't have continued falling even if the WOP hadn't started. Is there?

Indeed, an argument can be made that the WOP actually slowed then stopped the fall in the poverty rate and number in poverty because within 4 years of announcing the effort the number in poverty and the poverty rate bottomed out. Yet the spending continued. Trillions and trillions of dollars. And what happened? No further decrease in poverty. Indeed, both the number in poverty and the poverty rate started going back up. By 1983, the number in poverty was back up to 35 million and the rate was back up to 15%. Where it basically stayed for the next 20 years, despite the government spending trillions and trillions of dollars more.

In 2004, the government was devoting nearly 15 percent of all spending to WOP-type programs. The percentage is even higher today. The poverty rate for blacks was nearly 25% in 2004 with the rate for hispanics not far behind that. Now you would think that after 45 years of removing racial barriers and spending an amount almost equal to the current national debt on eliminating poverty, that rate would be below 25%. But it isn't.

And lest you think I'm just making this up, here's a source:

http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm


The "capitalism alone" phase of poverty reduction can be seen operating from 1950 to 1966. In that period the poverty rate (column H) fell from 30% to 15%. Even poverty in the non-white population (column I) fell from almost 60% in 1960 to 40% by 1966. ... snip ... What attends the striking increase in anti-poverty activity is the actual slowing and halting of the fall in the poverty rate. The percentage of the population below the poverty line bottoms out in 1973 at 11.1% and then stagnates or increases from then on. By 1981, only the first year of the Reagan Presidency, the poverty rate is already back up to 14%, where it hadn't been since 1967. At the same time, the percentage of families on AFDC had skyrocketed, from the disturbing 2% of 1963 to what must be the even more disturbing, or shocking, 6.5% of 1980. Programs intended to reduce "dependency" had instead more than tripled it.


Here's the poverty rate data the above mentions (from the same link) where H is the total poverty rate and I is the rate for non-whites:
Year H (total, %)
1950 30.2
1951 28.0
1952 27.9
1953 26.2
1954 27.9
1955 24.5
1956 22.9
1957 22.8
1958 23.1
1959 22.4
1960 22.2
1961 21.9
1962 21.0
1963 19.5
1964 19.0
1965 17.3
1966 15.7
1967 14.2
1968 12.8
1969 12.1
1970 12.6
1971 12.5
1972 11.9
1973 11.1
1974 11.6
1975 12.3
1976 11.8
1977 11.6
1978 11.4
1979 11.6
1980 13.0
and
Year I (non-white, %)
1959 58.2
1960 56.4
1961 56.8
1962 56.1
1963 51.1
1964 49.8
1965 47.1
1966 40.8
1967 38.2
1968 32.8
1969 30.9
1970 31.6
1971 31.3
1972 32.4
1973 29.3
1974 30.5
1975 29.8
1976 29.5
1977 29.0
1978 29.4
1979 28.9
1980 29.9

Remember, the WOP was announced by LBJ in 1964. So any reduction in the poverty rate before that cannot be due to the WOP. And it's even questionable whether the reduction in the rate the first few years after that date can be ascribed to the WOP because it took years to ramp up and establish the programs that are part of the WOP.

Here's another source to support that assertion:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864


The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.


Go ahead, KF ... explain to folks what caused the poverty rate for non-whites to drop from 58% in 1959 to 50% in 1964 ... before the War on Poverty got started? Explain what caused the drop in the total poverty rate from 30% in 1950 to 19% in 1964? It certainly wasn't the War on Poverty, was it, because that hadn't even started yet. Can you offer any explanation for why the total poverty rate dropped almost 10% (from 27.9% to 19%) in the ten years prior to the start of the WOP (more than it did in the 10 years after the start of the WOP)? :D

Well, for starters BAC you’ll notice that I said massive movement and not massive reparations.

Oh, so you were just pointing out that people wanted reparations, not that they actually got them. I'm not sure what that proves, but very well.

Second, you’ll also notice that I didn’t argue the economic impact of the reparations was enough to bring Japanese-Americans above the poverty-line but that the fact they received reparations at all was evidence that they weren’t receiving the same sort of discrimination facing blacks.

You're mixing apple and orange timeframes. The issue is not how blacks were being treated immediately following WW2. The issue is whether blacks were treated any worse following 1964, than Japanese-Americans were treated following WW2. Because within 20 years of WW2, Japanese Americans had recovered financially. The question is why 20 years after civil rights legislation and the massive welfare programs that began in 1964, did blacks not recover financially? And to understand the answer, you need to look at the response of each community in both cases. As I pointed out, the Japanese after WW2 worked hard, emphasized education (and not the liberal kind), taught the next generation a good work ethic, chose not to make themselves dependent on the government, and didn't cry racism at every perceived affront. The black community (in general) did just the opposite, at the urging of democrat and black leaders. It doesn't take a genious to see the correlation here, KF.

immigration from Asia (especially Japan) increased after WWII.

Japanese immigration did not really resume until the "aliens ineligible for citizenship" rule was removed in 1952 (7 years after WW2 ended).

Here is a source that shows the Japanese population in the US:

http://www.kasei.ac.jp/library/kiyou/2003/7.ONOZAWA.pdf

In 1940, there were about 285,000 Japanese-Americans. In 1950 that number was still only 326,000. By 1960, the number of Japanese immmigrants had grown to 464,000, and it climbed to 591,000 by 1970. But do you think that it was wealthy Japanese who came over in the 50s and 60s? :rolleyes: That is not what caused the economic status of Japanese Americans to change so dramatically. :D

Also, do you think that no blacks migrated to the US following 1964? Let's look at that. Quite the contrary, it was primarily the more well to do and well educated blacks who came to the US during that time. In fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigration_to_the_United_States ), "African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group, other than Asians. African immigrants to the U.S. are also more highly educated than any other native-born ethnic group including white Americans. Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly less than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans." If anything, immigration should have helped the black community recover economically … but that doesn't seem to be the case.

By the way, you have a citation for the "TRILLIONS" that we've given blacks?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131174,00.html


CATO

September 01, 2004

... snip ...

One thing the pundits and presidential candidates aren't saying much about, however, is how much money has been spent fighting the "war on poverty"—$9 trillion and counting. Yes, $9 trillion.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16860


Democrats' War on Poverty Has Failed

09/06/2006

... snip ...

The public expenditure on the variety of governmental schemes devised in the last forty years to eliminate poverty has been extraordinary. Since 1964 we have spent $8–10 trillion on antipoverty programs. In 1996, at the midpoint in the Clinton administration, the federal government expended $191 billion on poverty programs, fully 12.2 percent of the federal budget. President George W. Bush actually increased the effort. The 2006 budget, at the midpoint of Bush’s administration, calls for a massive increase in poverty programs, increasing the expenditure $368 billion to 14.6 percent of the federal budget. The Bush administration oversees a host of continuing poverty programs that includes Medicaid, food stamps, supplementary security income, temporary assistance to needy families, child day-care payments, child nutrition payments, foster care, adoption assistance, and health insurance for children. The conclusion is virtually inescapable: if the availability of nearly an unlimited amount of money and the determination of countless government bureaucracies were the necessary and sufficient conditions to eliminate poverty, then in 2004 we should not still have more than 12 percent of the U.S. population—nearly 37 million people—in poverty.


Now mind you, the whole WOP began as an effort to eliminate poverty in the black community. LBJ constantly talked of racial injustice. And the fact is that since 1964, the government has taken over $10 trillion dollars from the pockets of producers (mostly caucasians and asians) and transferred (after siphoning off a *small* fee to run the program) that to non-producers (of which many, indeed most, were black and hispanic).

You want to see this growth graphically? Here:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2427/b2427_chart2.ashx?w=500&h=459&as=1

In fact, more than $10 TRILLION has been spent since 1964:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/09/Obama-to-Spend-103-Trillion-on-Welfare-Uncovering-the-Full-Cost-of-Means-Tested-Welfare-or-Aid-to-the-Poor


Since the beginning of the War on Poverty, government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare.

So even if only a third of welfare went to blacks (and they actually got a disproportionate share of welfare spending), there clearly have been TRILLIONS of dollars in aid to the black community over the last 45 years.

With essentially little progress in reducing poverty:

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/022C44298D6CDDA28C12A757B4A56F57.gif

Oh ... before you make a big deal of the tail end of that figure, you'd better ask yourself why it was dropping then and why it has since crept back up to about 34% despite even more trillions in spending. :D

In conclusion ... what a monumental and destructive waste by liberal thinkers …

And, unfortunately, there appears to be no end in sight to this utter stupidity:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/sr0078/sr78_chart6.ashx?w=600&h=1052&as=1


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Again, I'll just point out the obvious.

In 20 years, the Japanese went from essentially having nothing in a country where large segments of the populace hated them intensely, to being one of the wealthiest groups and widely accepted by people of entirely different skin color. And they did it without government help but by focusing on hard work and education … not by whining that this or that injustice was racist.

Contrast that with the black community which in 1964, was relatively well off compared to 1945 Japanese Americans. Here we are 45 years later, having spent upwards of ten trillion dollars on social welfare programs of which most were aimed at blacks, and the black community is less well off now then in 1964. And the reason is obvious to anyone with a bit of common sense.


"Common sense" meaning “whatever agrees with my ideology”. History seems to disagree with you in regards to welfare.


What I said is worth noting again, in response to YOUR *ideology*. :D


You can find that article here

LOL! Steve Kangas. You sure you only admire communists? :D

Wow, just wow. After reading this I truly think that there isn’t a right-wing meme that you won’t believe.

Wow, just wow. After reading your last link I truly think that there isn't a left-wing meme that you won't believe. :D

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Wall of text? LOL! It must really irk you to know that I disposed of your argument so easily … in less than 362 words. :D

You keep holding victory parties over my phantom arguments BAC. :rolleyes:

Well I tried folks. But I guess logic wasn't one of the things they taught would be communist admirers.

Or conservatives, apparently.

This is false, KF. But then communist admirers never have had trouble spouting falsehoods, have they? Here are the facts, folks.

No it's just your inability to understand my argument, again. Funny thing about you BAC, you seem to like to invent arguments for your opponents. We could probably make a hell of a drinking game by starting an argument with you and then taking a drink every time you ignore your opponent's argument to debate with strawmen.

LBJ announced the WOP in 1964, when the number of people "in poverty" was officially about 35 million and the poverty rate was about 19%. It's true that the number in poverty fell to about 25 million and the poverty rate fell to about 12 percent by 1968. But it took years for WOP spending to really get underway (in fact spending on the program didn't really get going until the Nixon and Ford years). So what caused the poverty rate to drop to 16% in 1965, just one year after LBJ announced the effort?

Of course the War on Poverty wasn't the only time in which welfare existed in the US, now was it? Social Security was established during the 1930's and the initial act gave welfare money to the retired, the unemployed, established the AFDC and public health care services. Focusing on the WoP in hopes that I'll forget about these early programs is, really and truly, wasted effort on your part. :rolleyes:

Could it be that the poverty rate was already headed lower? Well that's exactly what was happening. Just 5 years before the WOP began, the number in poverty was 40 million and the rate was 22%. So in those 5 years, the number in poverty and the poverty rate was falling just as "drastically" as it did in the 5 years after WOP funding actually got underway. And there was no reason to believe it wouldn't have continued falling even if the WOP hadn't started. Is there?

Obviously I didn't claim that welfare and only welfare lowers the poverty rate, so I'm going to call another strawman here. Yes, economic expansion can and does lower the poverty rate. But I argue that it isn't as efficient in a zero welfare society. As I evidence I cite the pre-New Deal US. Despite numerous economic expansions before the new deal the poverty rate was still enormous, many individuals didn't even make what would be considered a livable wage.

Indeed, an argument can be made that the WOP actually slowed then stopped the fall in the poverty rate and number in poverty because within 4 years of announcing the effort the number in poverty and the poverty rate bottomed out. Yet the spending continued. Trillions and trillions of dollars. And what happened? No further decrease in poverty.

What are you talking about? Even by your own numbers this is blatantly false. Following the passing of the EOA in 1964 the poverty rate in the country dropped by two percent and then another two percent after the passing of SSA of 1965. By 1966 the poverty rate was 15.7%, down from 19% in 1964. That's the largest drop in poverty at that point. The decline in poverty rate continued to drop at a quick pace until 1969 when the decline slowed and 1970 when the poverty rate increased. Never you mind the eleven month recession during that time. :rolleyes:

It continued to decrease until the '73-75 recession. Then it decreased once more until 1979. You can argue that Johnson's increase of welfare was a null effect, and I'd love to see your numbers, but actually slowing the decrease of poverty is ridiculous. Your own numbers prove that wrong. :rolleyes:

And even then, it's widely accepted by many historians and economists that the 1970-80's were not particularly kind to the ideals of the welfare state. Nixon initially attempted to reduce welfare benefits before he caved and we saw an expansion of welfare benefits. Though, nearly his entire presidency was spent in recession.

Perhaps the most damning evidence against your assertion is this graph (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif). According to it, massive increases in poverty were seen follow the deep cuts that both Reagan and Clinton managed to secure. Despite Reagan presiding over quite the economic expansion, he also presided over a major increase in poverty.

Indeed, both the number in poverty and the poverty rate started going back up. By 1983, the number in poverty was back up to 35 million and the rate was back up to 15%. Where it basically stayed for the next 20 years, despite the government spending trillions and trillions of dollars more.

You're forgetting that the 80's saw drastic cuts in welfare. :rolleyes: By your logic poverty should have decreased.

Oh, so you were just pointing out that people wanted reparations, not that they actually got them. I'm not sure what that proves, but very well.

Actually I pointed out both. There was a movement for redress and they received redress. You must have some sort of problem with reading comprehension.

You're mixing apple and orange timeframes. The issue is not how blacks were being treated immediately following WW2. The issue is whether blacks were treated any worse following 1964, than Japanese-Americans were treated following WW2. Because within 20 years of WW2, Japanese Americans had recovered financially. The question is why 20 years after civil rights legislation and the massive welfare programs that began in 1964, did blacks not recover financially?

The rate of poverty for blacks has been steadily decreasing. A large number are still impoverished but, as has been pointed out to you, it is difficult to claw your way out of poverty. And there is widespread evidence, again it has been pointed out, that many individuals are still acting against the interests of the black community. The Civil Rights movement was a major victory but the fight for equality is still far from over.

And to understand the answer, you need to look at the response of each community in both cases. As I pointed out, the Japanese after WW2 worked hard, emphasized education (and not the liberal kind), taught the next generation a good work ethic, chose not to make themselves dependent on the government, and didn't cry racism at every perceived affront.

You have a decidedly dim view of the black population, I see. No, no amount of welfare can substitute the will to get out of poverty. That doesn't mean zero welfare is the most efficient and best course of action, however.

The black community (in general) did just the opposite, at the urging of democrat and black leaders. It doesn't take a genious to see the correlation here, KF.

It does, apparently, take a genius to spell "genius". I'd be more inclined to accept your assertion if it didn't sound like stereotyping.

Japanese immigration did not really resume until the "aliens ineligible for citizenship" rule was removed in 1952 (7 years after WW2 ended).

Here is a source that shows the Japanese population in the US:

http://www.kasei.ac.jp/library/kiyou/2003/7.ONOZAWA.pdf

:words:

Also, do you think that no blacks migrated to the US following 1964? Let's look at that. Quite the contrary, it was primarily the more well to do and well educated blacks who came to the US during that time. In fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_immigration_to_the_United_States ), "African immigrants to the United States were found more likely to be college educated than any other immigrant group, other than Asians. African immigrants to the U.S. are also more highly educated than any other native-born ethnic group including white Americans. Some 48.9 percent of all African immigrants hold a college diploma. This is slightly less than the percentage of Asian immigrants to the U.S., nearly double the rate of native-born white Americans, and nearly four times the rate of native-born African Americans." If anything, immigration should have helped the black community recover economically … but that doesn't seem to be the case.

You have any evidence that immigration from economically well-off and well-educated individuals had no effect on the prosperity of either group?

Now mind you, the whole WOP began as an effort to eliminate poverty in the black community.

I'm starting to see how you come to these ridiculous conclusions of yours. :rolleyes:

LBJ constantly talked of racial injustice. And the fact is that since 1964, the government has taken over $10 trillion dollars from the pockets of producers (mostly caucasians and asians) and transferred (after siphoning off a *small* fee to run the program) that to non-producers (of which many, indeed most, were black and hispanic).

You are aware that whites are the largest recipients of welfare, right? :rolleyes:

Nonsense about welfare[/quote]

As I pointed out above, the majority of welfare money goes to whites. And here is another article (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-corporatewelfare.htm) from Kangas, since you love him so much, that outlines the even distribution of welfare amongst various income levels.

LOL! Steve Kangas. You sure you only admire communists? :D

Attacking the source instead of the content, typical ultra-conservative response.

Wow, just wow. After reading your last link I truly think that there isn't a left-wing meme that you won't believe. :D

"I know you are but what am I?" Third graders all over the world tremble at the razor-tip of your tongue. :newlol

[BeAChooser]

Where exactly did I make a "false claim" about your position? I'm waiting.


So the issue is public education vs. private education it seems. Not Liberal vs. Conservative. Or do actually believe liberals hate private schools? Are you implying private schools are somehow a conservative institution and public schools a liberal one? Do you believe conservatives bare no blame in the current status of public education?



And to answer your second question internment certainly didn't effect the entire Japansese population

True, only about half the Japanese-American population. :rolleyes: But the rest suffered from economic impacts and discrimination as a result of a quasi-internment on the Hawaiian islands.


I'd argue that segregation and other forms of institutionalized discrimination had greater and more substational effects on the black community than internment on the Japanese community.

Post 1964? Because that's the only timeframe that matters to the comparison I'm making.

apparently the poverty rate has declinced over the past several decades.

No, it's been going back up, especially amongst blacks.

Now where's the Liberal assult on marriage you were talking about? A feminist organization with a leader that condemed marriage does NOT = a "Liberal assualt on marriage" as much as it = "NOW's assault on marriage".

Did you ever bother to read the portion of the Ann Coulter I linked?

Even your artical mentions that as a whole "The majority of families who leave the welfare system do so after a relatively short period of time -- about half leave within a year; 70 percent within two years and almost 90 percent within five years."

It also mentions that "the majority of the current caseload will eventually receive welfare for relatively long periods of time" and states in the sentence immediately following what you quoted that "But many return almost as quickly as they left -- about 45 percent return within a year and 70 percent return by the end of five years." This explains the portion I quoted earlier that "one-third of women who ever use welfare will spend longer than five years on the welfare rolls". And it explains this fact: "On average, about 70 percent of families receiving assistance at a given point in time have already received assistance for at least 24 months and 48 percent have received assistance for more than 60 months." Welfare is not quite as short term a thing as you wish to portray.


Yes that John Lewis.


LOL! So you think John Lewis is only a reflection of the black community and not trying to convince the black community of anything? Well then, since Lewis clearly lied, that must mean the black community believes lies. In which case, the black community is basing important decisions that will affect it's future on lies. Perhaps blacks need to reexamine the veracity of what they believe, rather than just accepting the regurgitated lies spouted by their ministers (and the democratic party).


Quote:
And Julian Bond and John Lewis aren't … even though many of their statements are just as inflammatory?

Nope.

Well what is it that makes Julian Boand and John Lewis different from Reverend Wright? That's still unclear.


Quote:
There you go with another strawman.

There you go not understanding what a strawman is.


Well then your *imagination* must truly flawed. Perhaps you shouldn't rely so much on it in reaching your conclusions? :D

The best he could do to connect Mike Klonksy to communism is through his father. The author doesn't even claim Klonsky is a communist and only succeds at weakly connecting him to the "social justice" herring.

You seem confused. Did you think I wasn't the author of what I posted about Mike Klonsky?

As for proof Mike Klonsky was a communist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Klonsky


He is known for his work with the Students for a Democratic Society, the New Communist Movement, and, later, the small schools movement. … snip … In the 1970s he became a leader of the New Communist Movement which broke away from the older Communist Party USA and its allegiance to the Soviet Union. He headed the Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist), in which role he was one of the U.S. political activists who visited the People's Republic of China.


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2436


In the 1960s Michael Klonsky, while attending San Fernando Valley State College (now California State University, Northridge), joined the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). In 1968 he became SDS's national chairman. That same year, he helped spark the riots that erupted in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. Klonsky was also a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.

In 1968 Klonsky penned a document titled “Toward a Revolutionary Youth Movement,” wherein he quoted -- with admiration -- Chinese dictator Mao Zedong. This document called for the development of “an organized class-conscious youth movement” to engage in “revolutionary struggle” to “expose war, racism, the exploitation of labor, and the oppression of youth.”

… snip …

[Klonsky] founded the “October League,” a Maoist organization that later (in June 1977) changed its name to the “Communist Party (Marxist Leninist)” (CPML).

In his role as CPML chairman, Klonsky was highly admired by Mao Zedong. In 1977, a year after Mao's death, Klonsky became one of the first Americans ever to be invited by China's Communist government to visit that country. He met with Mao's successor, Chairman Hua Kuo-feng, and received what the Washington Post described as “the warmest reception ever given an American by the new Chinese leader.”


As proof he is strongly connected to the "social justice" meme, where in the world have you been? Klonsky's blog on the Obama website focused, as he put it, on "education policies and teaching for social justice." In 2007 he co-authored a book titled "Simple Justice: the challenge of small schools" which is part of the "Teaching For Social Justice Series." Here's how the abstract of that book starts:

http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED445877&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED445877


Written by major players in the small schools movement, this collection of essays points to the ways that school restructuring strategies connect to the ongoing pursuit of social justice.


By the way, he's also a founding board member of MDS … the newly relaunched SDS of our times (http://movementforademocraticsociety.org/ ). MDS is an organization whose board is filled with self admitted hardcore socialists and communists. But you see no connection … right? :rolleyes:

I don't know what world you live in. I have yet to see a black, Asian, Arab, or hispanic person described as a red neck.

http://www.tsowell.com/Rednecks.htm "Black Rednecks and White Liberals"

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594030863


The northern region itself used discrimination methods not just against black rednecks, but to white rednecks. He notes that racism in the north started when ghetto blacks moved up north, being that the whites and blacks both were uncomfortable with the redneck culture within their community.


… snip …

As Sowell wrote in the Wall Street Journal (April 26 2005):

"The redneck culture proved to be a major handicap for both whites and blacks who absorbed it. Today, the last remnants of that culture can still be found in the worst of the black ghettos, whether in the North or the South, for the ghettos of the North were settled by blacks from the South. The counterproductive and self-destructive culture of black rednecks in today's ghettos is regarded by many as the only `authentic' black culture -- and, for that reason, something not to be tampered with. Their talk, their attitudes, and their behavior are regarded as sacrosanct."



:D

[Juniversal]

True, only about half the Japanese-American population. :rolleyes: But the rest suffered from economic impacts and discrimination as a result of a quasi-internment on the Hawaiian islands.Yes and prior to the civil rights act, essentially ALL black americans suffered "economic impacts and discrimination" as a result of past practices whether felt first hand or indirectly. But you seem to believe that somehow all this was remedied the moment the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964 and all the effects of centuries of disenfranchisment, racism and discrimination should be gone by now. :rolleyes:


Post 1964? Because that's the only timeframe that matters to the comparison I'm making.Yes. Post 1964 the effects were deeply ingrained into our society. Economic and social oppression has a nice way of concentrating poverty and segregation and time had a nice way of creating ghettos, only compounding the problem. In 1964 there was about 19 million blacks in this country, distributed mostly in crowded urban areas in the north.

You'd have to be extremely dense if you can't understand how the concentrated poverty that has plauged the black community provided an immense obstacle for black Americans as a whole. It's rediculous to compare the Japanese after internment and black Americans after the civil rights act and expect the same end to be met with each group in the same time frame.


No, it's been going back up, especially amongst blacks. Poverty goes through undulations and dips with the introduction of reccesions and economic down turns. That's not unusual. Overall it's declined with the introduction of the War on Poverty.


Did you ever bother to read the portion of the Ann Coulter I linked?Yes and I told you how I felt about it.



It also mentions that "the majority of the current caseload will eventually receive welfare for relatively long periods of time" and states in the sentence immediately following what you quoted that "But many return almost as quickly as they left -- about 45 percent return within a year and 70 percent return by the end of five years." This explains the portion I quoted earlier that "one-third of women who ever use welfare will spend longer than five years on the welfare rolls". And it explains this fact: "On average, about 70 percent of families receiving assistance at a given point in time have already received assistance for at least 24 months and 48 percent have received assistance for more than 60 months." Welfare is not quite as short term a thing as you wish to portray.Got me there.



LOL! So you think John Lewis is only a reflection of the black community and not trying to convince the black community of anything? Well then, since Lewis clearly lied, that must mean the black community believes lies. In which case, the black community is basing important decisions that will affect it's future on lies. Perhaps blacks need to reexamine the veracity of what they believe, rather than just accepting the regurgitated lies spouted by their ministers (and the democratic party).You have absolutely no proof that Lewis lied and your attempt to connect that supposed lie to what the "black community believes" so you can claim the "black community is basing it's future on lies" is laughable. And I still don't know where you get the idea that black folks learn everything from ministers or democratic party members. Do really think that we're that brainless? :confused:


Well what is it that makes Julian Boand and John Lewis different from Reverend Wright? That's still unclear.Wrights rhetoric is extremely inflammatory and much less about justice and moreso about agressively distancing himself from the mainstream unlike Bond and Lewis who actually have the goal of *gasp* real social justice (omg communist!!).


You seem confused. Did you think I wasn't the author of what I posted about Mike Klonsky?

As for proof Mike Klonsky was a communist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Klonsky



http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2436



As proof he is strongly connected to the "social justice" meme, where in the world have you been? Klonsky's blog on the Obama website focused, as he put it, on "education policies and teaching for social justice." In 2007 he co-authored a book titled "Simple Justice: the challenge of small schools" which is part of the "Teaching For Social Justice Series." Here's how the abstract of that book starts:

http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED445877&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED445877



By the way, he's also a founding board member of MDS … the newly relaunched SDS of our times (http://movementforademocraticsociety.org/ ). MDS is an organization whose board is filled with self admitted hardcore socialists and communists. But you see no connection … right? :rolleyes:So he WAS a communist. Your artical wasn't very concise with the evidence. I didn't explore beyond the artical. I expected more from you Chooser. ;) But the fact he considers himself a communist does little to affirm your stance that "social justice is just a code word for communist". As I said earlier, naturally, not all who campaign on social justice are communist. Do you agree?


http://www.tsowell.com/Rednecks.htm "Black Rednecks and White Liberals"

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Rednecks-Liberals-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1594030863




:DSowell is clearly using the word redneck and applying it to blacks to describe behavior that's typically associated with poor whites. Regardless, the modern interpretation of the word is certainly that it's a deragatory term for "poor uncouth whites". Your resistance to excepting this obvious truth is futile. :D

[Lurker]

So in other words, by hurting the socio-economic status of people, the War On Poverty has hurt education. I see. :D

I don't even understand your nonsequitor here.

And besides (keeping in mind that the following is from Time Magazine, a very left leaning media outlet) …

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html



So why do Catholic schools do better?[/quote]
Again, you cite something that in no way is controlling their sampling. Sorry, this fails.



Plus …
http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/forster200505120815.asp

As it happens, there’s a large body of very high-quality research that does allow us to evaluate the causal connection between school type and student achievement, and it overwhelmingly finds that private schools do better. The most convincing evidence comes from seven studies using “random assignment,” the same method used in medical trials. In all seven studies, students who won a random lottery to use a school voucher at a private school had significantly greater test-score gains than similar students who lost the lottery and stayed in public schools.

Differences in socio-economic status don't explain that, Lurker.

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5473-the-private-school-advantage

OK, Random Assignment. FINALLY you are providing something that has actual merit. Let me take a look at it and get back to you on this one.

[Lurker]

When you asked "do we have the graduation rates for blacks in states like Texas versus a state like Minnesota?", what you clearly were trying to do is claim that the graduation rate for blacks in Texas isn't any higher than in blue states like Minnesota. And I proved you wrong.

If it makes you feel better, you go ahead and think that. Funny how in the very post you cite I went on to contradict my blue state example. Here let me show you:

I would think that we should see higher rates of high school graduation for blacks in states that have higher Republican control over local school boards and state politicians. So, do we have the graduation rates for blacks in states like Texas versus a state like Minnesota? I think that might demonstrate your point, BAC.

Oh, here we go. Here is some data:

Quote:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_baeo.htm

Lowest grad rate for African-Americans: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Georgia, and Tennessee.

Highest grad rate for African-American: West Virginia, Massachusetts, Arkansas, and New Jersey.

Hmm, I am not seeing any red state/blue state trend there. Kind of blows your theory out of the water, eh?


For some odd reason you think I was trying to compare Texas and Minnesota as if the Blue state MN was superior to the Red state TX. Odd how in the very post you cited I provided evidence showing that the blue state I used as an example of a blue state had one of the lowest grad rates for blacks. Don't you think it odd that I would make a post that allegedly blows away my premise?

Unless what you thought was my premise was in error. Again, I used TX and MN as examples of red/blue states. I had no idea what the black grad rate was and went to find out and added it to my original post.

My point was to show the lack of correlation between red/blue versus black grad rates, which I succeeded in doing. You would prefer to think I was comparing TX and MN which I was not. But if it makes you feel better, you totally demolished my point* dude!






*or at least what you imagined to be my point.

[BeAChooser]

Of course the War on Poverty wasn't the only time in which welfare existed in the US, now was it?

First of all, you stated "if the welfare state is responsible for keeping people in poverty then why did poverty decrease most drastically during expansions of welfare?". Instead of just asking why poverty decreased following the New Deal, you implied a more general assertion. My post to you proves such a sweeping statement is unfounded. Also, since the discussion at the time was about a comparison of the WOP to what happened to Japanese-Americans following WW2, I simply decided to ignore your attempt to change the playing field. But since you insist …

Social Security was established during the 1930's and the initial act gave welfare money to the retired, the unemployed, established the AFDC and public health care services.

Social Security in the 1930's through 1950's was by and large not sold to the public as a welfare program because it required most people put money into the system in order to expect anything out of it. In fact, in the early years the plan was going to take in far more money than it would pay out. But even if some people did get SS money without doing so, you are making the same mistake as others did in the WOP case. Prior to the New Deal, the poverty rate was already dropping precipitously. In fact, here's a source (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4538613 and http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp116698.pdf ) that indicates the poverty rate in the 1920s dropped a good 20%. That's before Social Security was enacted so to claim that any drop following the New Deal was due only to SS is completely unsupportable.

Focusing on the WoP in hopes that I'll forget about these early programs is, really and truly, wasted effort on your part.

Also, you ignore other events that were going on at the time that likely were more responsible for much of any decrease in poverty following the enactment of SS. Like a World War which stimulated employment. Like the massive capitalistic economic boom that following that war here in the US.

Obviously I didn't claim that welfare and only welfare lowers the poverty rate, so I'm going to call another strawman here.

But you did clearly suggest it was responsible for "drastic" reductions in the poverty rate following expansions in welfare. Now I've just noted that in both the New Deal and WOP timeframes, other things were occuring that appear to have had large impacts on the poverty rate dropping. And I showed that prior to both, the poverty rate was already dropping "drastically". Thus, your sweeping statements seems rather too sweeping. :D

And one more point, we now define poverty in a manner that would have classified almost everyone at the turn of the last century as living in poverty. The definition of poverty has changed (and now, it turns out, Obama want's to change it even further).

Despite numerous economic expansions before the new deal the poverty rate was still enormous, many individuals didn't even make what would be considered a livable wage.

Yes, I hear that's what communists at the time were incessantly complaining about. ;)


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Indeed, an argument can be made that the WOP actually slowed then stopped the fall in the poverty rate and number in poverty because within 4 years of announcing the effort the number in poverty and the poverty rate bottomed out. Yet the spending continued. Trillions and trillions of dollars. And what happened? No further decrease in poverty.

What are you talking about? Even by your own numbers this is blatantly false. Following the passing of the EOA in 1964 the poverty rate in the country dropped by two percent and then another two percent after the passing of SSA of 1965.

First of all, how do you explain that, given that in 1964 and 1965 only a tiny amount of welfare was actually handed out (because it takes time to establish a pipeline for it)? Didn't you look at this graph: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2427/b2427_chart2.ashx?w=500&h=459&as=1 ? Between 1959-1968 only $0.09 trillion dollars was distributed. Compared to $.047 trillion between 1969 and 1978. And almost $10 trillion between 1979 and 2008. If that tiny amount of welfare spending was responsible for that 4% reduction in the poverty rate, why didn't it go down even faster as far more money was handed out? Why did it bottom out in the late 60s and 70s, and then start rising again as even larger amounts of welfare were distributed? Sorry, KF, but you only prove one of my points … that something other than WOP spending must be responsible for most of the drop in poverty rates in the 60s and 70s. :D

Second, what do you mean, what am I talking about? I think I was rather clear and, no, my data does not prove my assertion wrong. Just the opposite. But you go on spinning … like communist admirers have always done throughout history.


Perhaps the most damning evidence against your assertion is this graph. According to it, massive increases in poverty were seen follow the deep cuts that both Reagan and Clinton managed to secure. Despite Reagan presiding over quite the economic expansion, he also presided over a major increase in poverty.


LOL! There are a few *minor* problems with drawing that conclusion from that graph, KF.

First, note that Reagan's term ran from 1981 to 1989. That graph shows the poverty rate was already starting to increase in 1978. In fact, it looks like almost half the period of increase occurred before Reagan even took office. So how do you explain that with your *theory*? Furthermore, an inflection point where the increase in the poverty rate slowed occurred in 1982. Then it began to go down in 1983 … just 2 years after Reagan took office … and continued dropping throughout the rest of his Presidential term … for 6 years (during the time of economic expansion). So to me that chart suggests that Reagan's policies stopped the increase in poverty rate that massive welfare spending had been producing and caused it to drop instead. Anyone should be able to see that … except perhaps someone who admires communists.

Likewise, Clinton was President from 1993 to 2001. Your graph shows the poverty rate started climbing in 1989, just after Reagan left office and years before Clinton came into office. So how do you explain that with your *theory*? And your graph shows that the poverty rate started dropping in 1993, just after Clinton entered office, and continued dropping throughout the economic expansion of the 1990s. Did you even look at the graph you linked? Because, if anything, it looks like those "deep cuts" that Clinton "managed to secure" (:rolleyes:) did just the opposite of what you claim. :D

You're forgetting that the 80's saw drastic cuts in welfare.

LOL! Did you even bother to look at the charts I provided earlier? There weren't "drastic cuts" in welfare spending in the 80s. In fact, just the opposite. The US went from spending half a trillion dollars on welfare in the 70s to spending almost 3 times that in the 80s. Here's a chart that shows Welfare spending over time.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2427/b2427_chart1.ashx?w=500&h=547&as=1

Notice that one of the few brief reductions in spending occurred right after Reagan took office in 1981 … and that was just 5-7% reduction … hardly what I'd call "drastic". And notice that welfare spending started going back up right away to end even higher than it was at the beginning of his term. But apparently that initial cut (and the deep cuts in taxes that he instituted) were enough to jumpstart the whole economy and produce a massive expansion that created millions and millions of new jobs. Will liberals and socialists ever learn from the lessons Reagan taught? Apparently not.

The rate of poverty for blacks has been steadily decreasing.

False. Why do communist admirers misrepresent economic facts? Here's a graph of the black poverty rate in the US from 1966 to 2008:

http://northshorejournal.org/LinkedImages//2009/09/Black-poverty-rate-for-2008-1.jpg

The poverty rate was dropping rapidly in the 60s, but as I've already shown, it was dropping just as rapidly in the 10 years before the WOP began. WOP spending probably had little to do with the post 1964 drop. In the late 60s and early 70s, when WOP spending really began to kick in, the poverty rate stopped dropping and essentially leveled off … remaining relatively constant throughout the 70s. Likely, WOP spending was the cause of that. Then, before Reagan took office (during Jimmy Carter's socialist admiring adminstration), the poverty rate began to rise rapidly, despite further increases in the amount of welfare spending. But it went down during Reagan's term (the 80s) … during an economic expansion created by lowering taxes and inspiring confidence in America (and perhaps his temporarily reducing and then slowing the growth of welfare). Then the rate started going up after Reagan left office, again despite still even more massive welfare spending. When republicans forced Clinton to cut taxes and another economic expansion began, the black poverty rate dropped again. But since 2000, despite even more massive welfare spending than before, it's been going back up. It hasn't been going steadily down, KF. You need to stop trying to deceive readers. :D

The Civil Rights movement was a major victory

I have no problem with the Civil Rights Act. Just the abuse of it since then by democrats leaders and black ministers.

You have a decidedly dim view of the black population, I see.

No more dim a view than I have of democrats in general … who have foolishly swallowed the dishonesty of their party's leaders and bogus liberal/socialist economics. Or for that matter, conservatives, who have been fooled by big government republicans who pander rather than stick to principles. I'm just stating the facts, KF. I know you don't like to see blacks in that light, but they've chosen to make themselves dependent on government, haven't emphasized education to the same degree Japanese Americans did, and tend to cry racism at the drop of a hat, even when it's obvious that racism is not a factor. Those are the facts.

No, no amount of welfare can substitute the will to get out of poverty.

If you really believed that, there might be hope for you yet. :D

That doesn't mean zero welfare is the most efficient and best course of action, however.

And who has suggested "zero welfare"? Not me. Not most conservatives. We have no problem giving temporary help to those who really need it. But welfare that becomes a crutch and an excuse is not really helpful. It's destructive.

It does, apparently, take a genius to spell "genius".

:rolleyes: So instead of dealing with the facts and the issue, you want to play grammar and typo cop. Fine. Like I told you before … I'm an ingineer. We're notorious at bad spelling. But we do know how to identify and solve problems and deal with data (of all types). Something that communist admiring, liberal arts educated, English majors with aspirations of writing books for a living often aren't very good at doing. :D

You have any evidence that immigration from economically well-off and well-educated individuals had no effect on the prosperity of either group?

Of course such immigration has a positive effect. But in the case of blacks, that positive effect was swamped by all the bad notions and habits that blacks adopted from liberals … which the Japanese American community did not adopt. By the way, do you know what recent black immigrants in general think of native born and educated blacks? Here, read this:

http://blackpeople.tribe.net/thread/6a28eaac-07c6-4376-ba08-c78010a5b1f6


I live in Seattle where there is a sizable community of East African immigransts from the countries of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somolia. I have many East African friends and I've observed that despite coming from war torn countries to escape extreme poverty, and political persecution, they don't seem to carry the victimhood baggage.

In fact, they've become viewed as a "model minority" like some of the Asian groups. They are very family and community oriented with divorce and having children out of wedlock being a stigma for them. They've also taken to private enterprises, opening up convenience stores, gas stations and restaurants. Ethiopian cuisine is quite popular here. They've also been excelling in school because a disproportionate number of black students at the local universities and colleges are East African immigrants.

It's refreshing to see these black people empowering themselves though i'm concerned because I have observed that many East African immigrants look down on American blacks. I've also noticed that many American blacks look down on East Africans, or at best have very little to do with them. I live in a neighborhood with a large population of East Africans as well as African-Americans and there doesn't seem to be any solidarity between the two groups?


:)


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Now mind you, the whole WOP began as an effort to eliminate poverty in the black community.

I'm starting to see how you come to these ridiculous conclusions of yours.

What? You don't think black poverty was LBJs central concern? Even though he chaired Kennedy's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity (CEEO) and told President Kennedy that "The Negro … snip … [is] not gonna keep taking the **** we’re dishing out. We’re in a race with time. If we don’t act, we’re gonna have blood in the streets"? Even though he pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act? Even though in announcing "the Great Society" in 1964, he promised it would bring "an end to poverty and racial injustice"? Even though in his most famous speech in 1965 (http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/speeches.hom/650604.asp ), after hailing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts, said "freedom is not enough" and stated that the government would have to step in and activly improve conditions in the black community … with jobs, decent housing, safe playgrounds, healthcare, education, and more? He stated "First, Negroes are trapped--as many whites are trapped--in inherited, gateless poverty. They lack training and skills. They are shut in, in slums, without decent medical care. Private and public poverty combine to cripple their capacities. We are trying to attack these evils through our poverty program, through our education program, through our medical care and our other health programs, and a dozen more of the Great Society programs that are aimed at the root causes of this poverty. We will increase, and we will accelerate, and we will broaden this attack in years to come until this most enduring of foes finally yields to our unyielding will." You read that speech, KF, and try to convince me that I misconstrued the intent of the WOP. :D

You are aware that whites are the largest recipients of welfare, right?

You are aware that your challenge was that I support the assertion that trillions of welfare dollars have gone to blacks. As I noted earlier, even if blacks only get 1/3rd of the total (and they actually got more than that), I've proven they got trillions since 1964.

Furthermore, shouldn't we consider the percentage of each population group that is getting welfare, rather than just treating black and white populations as if they were equal in number? Even in 2008, the black population is 1/6th the size of the white population (including hispanics) and 1/5th the size of the non-hispanic white population. Blacks are clearly getting a disproportionate share of welfare, KF.

And back in the 1960s and 1970s when I'm asking why blacks didn't achieve what Japanese Americans achieved in the 50s, blacks got an even more disproportionate share compared to whites and hispanics. For example, in 1972 over 43% of blacks were on welfare in one form or another. Yet they comprised less than 10% of the overall population.

Do you know that in 1992 almost 40 percent of AFDC clients were black single mothers? Only 38% were white women with children. Even though blacks comprised only 1/6th the white population?

Do you know that between 1995 and 1999, the proportion of white families on welfare fell from 35.9% to 30.5%. In contrast, the black and latino proportions grew from 36.9% to 42.1% and 37.2% to 38.2%, respectively.

When are you going to see the obvious … that the WOP did not work. That it actually made things worse by preventing blacks from doing what Japanese Americans did back in the 40s and 50s. And that it is now doing to hispanics and whites what it did to blacks. Because liberals will not learn from history.

And by the way, in making that claim of yours, are you aware that you are including Social Security as welfare. Gee … don't democrats and socialist always insist in discussions about SS that SS is not welfare? Take SS out of the picture and what are the percentages, KF? :)

Attacking the source instead of the content, typical ultra-conservative response.

:rolleyes:

[Lurker]

BAC:

In regards to our conversation about private/public schools and blacks I found out the term who's logic I have been using to assail your faulty comparisons - "Selection Bias".

Since I have failed to show you the problem with comparing private school outcomes to public school outcomes I will point you to the Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias

I think it falls under the self-selection bias.

[BeAChooser]

But you seem to believe that somehow all this was remedied the moment the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964 and all the effects of centuries of disenfranchisment, racism and discrimination should be gone by now.

I don't believe that at all. I just believe that instead of doing what Japanese Americans did when facing disenfranchisment, racism, discrimination and economic difficulties at the end of WW2, blacks foolishly listened to socialist/communist democrats and black racebaiting ministers. And have ended up making themselves victicrats who are now dependent on government for whatever handouts those democrats decide to hand out to garner their votes (after, of course, stealing that wealth from the pockets of those who actually earned it … those who are probably most responsible for any increases in the standard of living that blacks have actually experienced in the past.) :D

Post 1964 the effects were deeply ingrained into our society.

So were the ways in which Japanese immigrants were viewed. Those views had several generations to solidify before WW2 arrived … which might be why Americans were so quick to let more than a 100,000 innocent people be rounded up and treated so unfairly during and after the war.

You'd have to be extremely dense if you can't understand how the concentrated poverty that has plauged the black community provided an immense obstacle for black Americans as a whole.

And you'd have to be extremely dense not to look at the data I've provided and see that the WOP has been a complete failure and has only worsened the situation of blacks in America.

Poverty goes through undulations and dips with the introduction of reccesions and economic down turns. That's not unusual. Overall it's declined with the introduction of the War on Poverty.

But it was declining just as fast (in fact faster) before the WOP so you can't claim reductions since then are the result of the WOP. And while there are undulations, those undulations can be rationally interpreted, as I did in my last post to KF, in a manner that only reinforces my assertions. And every attempt to come up with a contrary explanation (for example, KF's observations about Reagan and Clinton) have been spectacular fails.


Quote:
Did you ever bother to read the portion of the Ann Coulter I linked?

Yes and I told you how I felt about it.


Which was another spectacular fail.

You have absolutely no proof that Lewis lied

LOL! No, none at all, other than the fact that not one shred of evidence (video, audio, eyewitness, policeman, etc) backs up his claim … other than the fact that he refused to take a lie detector test regarding the claim (even after being offered $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if he would and passed it) … other than the fact that even another member of the caucus who was there standing near Lewis said he didn't hear any slurs … other than the fact that Lewis has shown himself to be a racebaiter in the past. No, none at all. :rolleyes:

and your attempt to connect that supposed lie to what the "black community believes"

You yourself said he's only representative of what the black community in general believes, Juniversal. Are you changing your mind? :D

Wrights rhetoric is extremely inflammatory

And you don't think Lewis' and Bond's is? :rolleye:

and much less about justice

LOL! Almost every other statement in Wright's *sermons* was a call for "social justice". For example … http://www.loyolaphoenix.com/2.3233/the-rev-wright-calls-for-social-justice-1.332810 . Weren't you listening?

So he WAS a communist.

And you think he's changed? What do you base that on? He's changed about at much as Van Jones changed … and Van Jones admitted that he only changed his rhetoric to make himself more palatable. His views were still the same. Same thing applies to Mike Klonsky. You are foolish if you think otherwise.

As I said earlier, naturally, not all who campaign on social justice are communist.

But Mike Klonsky, who has been closely tied to Obama for years, was/is a communist. And so was/is Bill Ayers. So was Van Jones. Indeed, it is surprising how many of those surrounding Obama were/are communists spouting the message of "social justice". :D

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

First of all, you stated "if the welfare state is responsible for keeping people in poverty then why did poverty decrease most drastically during expansions of welfare?". Instead of just asking why poverty decreased following the New Deal, you implied a more general assertion.

My statement is correct and you're simply reading too far into the statement, probably blatantly attributing meaning that isn't there as well. I even clarified my position in my previous post; no amount of welfare can replace economic prosperity but zero welfare (and I'll add the qualifier "weak welfare" to add further clarification) creates inefficiencies when dealing with poverty rates.

My post to you proves such a sweeping statement is unfounded.

Indeed it did, and it would have been made all the more meaningful had you addressed an argument that I actually made.

Also, since the discussion at the time was about a comparison of the WOP to what happened to Japanese-Americans following WW2, I simply decided to ignore your attempt to change the playing field. But since you insist …

The topic initially began to ridicule a tea party leader who was attempting to defend his fellow baggers against charges of racism before he released a statement that was decidedly racist. I entered the discussion at page ten with this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6166888&postcount=394) comment and again at page eleven with this one (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6175864&postcount=412). If you continue on from that post, reading about Japanese-American and black inequality, you'll notice that the WoP doesn't enter the debate until you bring it up here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6188644&postcount=435) in post #435.

You'll notice that in my initial comment I only mentioned welfare and not a specific program. You can accuse me of making ill-defined goal posts sure, and it isn't my fault that you assumed meaning rather than ask me, but to claim I'm switching out the goal-posts simply by calling you out on making the sharpshooter fallacy is a big ridiculous. Don't you think? ;)

Social Security in the 1930's through 1950's was by and large not sold to the public as a welfare program because it required most people put money into the system in order to expect anything out of it.

Semantics, it doesn't matter how it was sold to the public the fact of the matter is that no sane individual considers Social Security to be anything other than a form of welfare. I suppose if the government were to enact a law requiring the sacrificing of all first-born males to the god Ba'al and they sold it as the Motherhood Patriotism and Apple Pie Reclamation Act you'd be there arguing that it wasn't a law requiring child-sacrifice because that isn't how they sold the idea? And besides, I thought you conservatives consider SS to be a ponzi scheme anyways?

In fact, in the early years the plan was going to take in far more money than it would pay out.

As do most programs, are you arguing that this fact makes it "not-welfare"? Alright then, we'll just have to increase taxes so that no welfare program causes any budget deficits. Everybody wins in that case, liberals get to tax and spend to the poor and conservatives can claim that they've finally eliminated the welfare beast and returned to the glorious capitalist state envisioned by our Lord Jesus Christ and his servants the Founding Fathers. :)

But even if some people did get SS money without doing so, you are making the same mistake as others did in the WOP case.

So you qualify welfare as any program which gives money to individuals who don't pay into the system? Alright then, of course we'll have to chop quite a bit of money out of the "TRILLIONS" we give blacks as a result. Well, we wouldn't be getting rid of it as much as relabeling it "not-welfare" as a result.

Prior to the New Deal, the poverty rate was already dropping precipitously. In fact, here's a source (http://www.jstor.org/pss/4538613 and http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp116698.pdf ) that indicates the poverty rate in the 1920s dropped a good 20%. That's before Social Security was enacted so to claim that any drop following the New Deal was due only to SS is completely unsupportable.

Of course I never claimed once that the drop in poverty was due solely to SS. Also, am I the only one who finds it extremely ironic that you quoted a paper from a Keynesian source? It also doesn't seem to agree with your hand-waving away the importance of public policy and welfare.

Since World War II, when the fisc has been large enough to matter, public policy has reduced poverty and inequality in each year. Policy changes over time, however, have tended to reinforce market-generated trends in inequality and poverty rather than offset them. These conclusions are, on the whole, robust to alternative ways of measuring inequality and poverty.

And this

When the century is viewed as a whole, despite the uncertainty surrounding the data prior to 1947, we think it safe to say that inequality was greater in the first three decades than in any period since. The 1950s and 1960s were the decades of least inequality. From the 1970s through the mid-1990s inequality steadily increased to levels not seen since World War II ended, with no sign, as of this writing, that it has peaked.

The article goes on to note that income inequality and poverty did increase during recession but also noted that it failed to recover following them.

Also, you ignore other events that were going on at the time that likely were more responsible for much of any decrease in poverty following the enactment of SS. Like a World War which stimulated employment. Like the massive capitalistic economic boom that following that war here in the US.

Or the Keynesian-New Deal policies prior to said World War. ;) I ignore nothing, as a matter of fact I often hoist the post-war economic expansion up as the capability of Keynesian economics to produce economic prosperity while reducing unemployment and the poverty rate.

But you did clearly suggest it was responsible for "drastic" reductions in the poverty rate following expansions in welfare. Now I've just noted that in both the New Deal and WOP timeframes, other things were occuring that appear to have had large impacts on the poverty rate dropping. And I showed that prior to both, the poverty rate was already dropping "drastically". Thus, your sweeping statements seems rather too sweeping.

While I'd like to see the quote from that article which states that the poverty rate dropped 20% during the 20's, I'd almost forgotten that little snippet until I read this and after reviewing the article again I wasn't able to find it.

Now back to my main point. *buzzer* Wrong again! You're reading too much into my statement, again, and assuming that I'm making arguments I'm not. What I was calling into question was your apparent belief that welfare slows poverty rates and I pointed out that this wasn't the case as the numbers suggest otherwise.

And one more point, we now define poverty in a manner that would have classified almost everyone at the turn of the last century as living in poverty. The definition of poverty has changed (and now, it turns out, Obama want's to change it even further).

:confused: So then we shouldn't be arguing with this definition of poverty? I'm confused what point you were trying to make here.

Yes, I hear that's what communists at the time were incessantly complaining about.

And capitalists are all too willing to write them off as "economic deadwood" and move on.

First of all, how do you explain that, given that in 1964 and 1965 only a tiny amount of welfare was actually handed out (because it takes time to establish a pipeline for it)?

:words:

Sorry, KF, but you only prove one of my points … that something other than WOP spending must be responsible for most of the drop in poverty rates in the 60s and 70s. :D

I explain it mostly by pointing out that you've established a strawman that you can use and now you'll refuse to let go of it. Even after clarifying my position, again, you'll continue to latch on to it in full knowledge that it's the only argument you have.

Second, what do you mean, what am I talking about? I think I was rather clear and, no, my data does not prove my assertion wrong. Just the opposite. But you go on spinning … like communist admirers have always done throughout history.

The increase in spending is as a result of new welfare programs or expansions in regards to who receives welfare benefits. This graph (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Welfare_Benefits_Payments_Graph.gif) (source (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/apa.shtml#ftanf2)) clearly shows there has been a huge decline in welfare benefits since their peak in the late 70's. So while we're spending more money on welfare people are receiving less money. As always, I admire your ability to do the base amount of research before arriving to a conclusion. And that, Choosy my friend, is what I mean when I say "what are you talking about?" ;)

LOL! There are a few *minor* problems with drawing that conclusion from that graph, KF.

[...snipped BAC's poor interpretation of that graph...]

Say what you will about my admiration of certain communists but at least I know how to read a graph. Look at the graph again Choosey old buddy. You're looking for dips in poverty and I'm looking at trends wondering why poverty in the 70's-90's was utterly unable to recover following recession.

Reagen entered at the end of a recession, true, the poverty-rate peaked in 1983. What I've noticed, and you failed to notice, is that poverty rates did not return to pre-recession levels, in particular 1979. If less welfare is what we need to stir economic development and lower poverty levels then the welfare cuts enacted by Reagan during his presidency coupled with economic prosperity should have been enough to drop poverty levels to the 1979 level at least. Check out this (http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Role_of_a_Lifetime_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm) quote from a biography on Reagan regarding the effects of his cuts on the inner city.

But there were millions of Americans for whom it was not “morning again in America.” Reagan recognized this, though he rarely made the concession. He was an apostle of the marketplace whose premise had always been that the U.S. economic pie should be enlarged, not that everyone should receive an equal slice.

Despite the sea of happy children’s faces that graced the “feel-good” commercials, poverty exploded in the inner cities of America during the Reagan years, claiming children as its principal victims. The reason for this suffering was that programs targeted to low-income families, such as AFDC, were cut back far more than programs such as Social Security. As a result of cuts in such targeted programs-including school lunches and subsidized housing-federal benefit programs for households with incomes of less than $10,000 a year declined nearly 8% during the Reagan first term while federal aid for households with more than $40,000 income was almost unchanged.

As for Clinton, he did indeed manage to drop poverty levels quite a bit, hitting an all-time low in 1999. Something which didn't last long and his successor did a spectacular job of driving poverty levels almost up the 15% that Clinton entered office with. Of course, if the implication by your ":rolleyes:" smiley is true, that Clinton did not secure deep welfare cuts, then it's a gaffe on my part and a major blow to your entire argument. :newlol

LOL! Did you even bother to look at the charts I provided earlier? There weren't "drastic cuts" in welfare spending in the 80s. In fact, just the opposite. The US went from spending half a trillion dollars on welfare in the 70s to spending almost 3 times that in the 80s. Here's a chart that shows Welfare spending over time.

:words:

Will liberals and socialists ever learn from the lessons Reagan taught? Apparently not.

Review the information I've given you, weep, then return to me. Hopefully you'll finally realize that your far-right sources are lying to you. Though I won't hold my breath.

False. Why do communist admirers misrepresent economic facts? Here's a graph of the black poverty rate in the US from 1966 to 2008:

http://northshorejournal.org/LinkedImages//2009/09/Black-poverty-rate-for-2008-1.jpg

Fact. You handed me a graph which states such. :newlol

The poverty rate was dropping rapidly in the 60s, but as I've already shown, it was dropping just as rapidly in the 10 years before the WOP began.

You're aware that my comment pertains to blacks and not the population at large, right? Got a graph for that?

WOP spending probably had little to do with the post 1964 drop. In the late 60s and early 70s, when WOP spending really began to kick in, the poverty rate stopped dropping and essentially leveled off … remaining relatively constant throughout the 70s. Likely, WOP spending was the cause of that.

Do you have evidence for that or just sheer conjecture?

Then, before Reagan took office (during Jimmy Carter's socialist admiring adminstration), the poverty rate began to rise rapidly, despite further increases in the amount of welfare spending.

But decreases in the amount of benefits, as I noted. And, also as I noted, Reagan wishes he had Carter's poverty rates. :rolleyes:

But it went down during Reagan's term (the 80s) … during an economic expansion created by lowering taxes and inspiring confidence in America (and perhaps his temporarily reducing and then slowing the growth of welfare).

If by "cutting taxes" and inspiring confidence in America you mean Paul Volcker's fantastic use of textbook Keynesian economics, then sure! And if by "slowing the growth of welfare" you mean tripling national debt, then sure!

Then the rate started going up after Reagan left office, again despite still even more massive welfare spending.

And while benefits were still dropping. :rolleyes:

When republicans forced Clinton to cut taxes and another economic expansion began, the black poverty rate dropped again. But since 2000, despite even more massive welfare spending than before, it's been going back up. It hasn't been going steadily down, KF. You need to stop trying to deceive readers. :D

Jesus Christ tax cuts are magic! Cut pretty much any damn thing and economic prosperity follows. :newlol First, Clinton raised taxes when he entered office. He proposed to cut $500 billion out of the deficit by reducing spending and increasing taxes. As a matter of fact, the economy was already in a state of recovery before Clinton signed the Republicans proposed tax cuts in 1997, which heavily favored the rich. Review my graph; poverty was in decline long before the tax cuts were passed in 1997. I hope the readers can appreciate the irony in you saying I’m the one attempting to deceive them.

I have no problem with the Civil Rights Act. Just the abuse of it since then by democrats leaders and black ministers.

I never said you did.

No more dim a view than I have of democrats in general … who have foolishly swallowed the dishonesty of their party's leaders and bogus liberal/socialist economics.

It’s called Keynesian economics, and it’s responsible for the major economic recovery following WWII and it allowed economic growth in the US despite Reagan’s terrible supply-side, voodoo economics. Hopefully conservatives will strop worshipping at the throne of Reagan long enough to figure this out.

Or for that matter, conservatives, who have been fooled by big government republicans who pander rather than stick to principles. I'm just stating the facts, KF. I know you don't like to see blacks in that light, but they've chosen to make themselves dependent on government, haven't emphasized education to the same degree Japanese Americans did, and tend to cry racism at the drop of a hat, even when it's obvious that racism is not a factor. Those are the facts.

No, those are stereotypes that you’re expecting everyone to believe sans evidence.

If you really believed that, there might be hope for you yet. :D

I was thinking the same thing about your paragraph below.

And who has suggested "zero welfare"? Not me. Not most conservatives. We have no problem giving temporary help to those who really need it. But welfare that becomes a crutch and an excuse is not really helpful. It's destructive.

Read above

:rolleyes: So instead of dealing with the facts and the issue, you want to play grammar and typo cop. Fine. Like I told you before … I'm an ingineer. We're notorious at bad spelling. But we do know how to identify and solve problems and deal with data (of all types). Something that communist admiring, liberal arts educated, English majors with aspirations of writing books for a living often aren't very good at doing.

Liberal arts educated? :newlol English major? :newlol Writing books for a living? :newlol I’m not educated in liberal arts, nor am I an English major, and I never said I wanted to write books for a living. I have no intention of earning a living wage off of my writing; in fact, everything I’ve written thus far has been released for free.

Of course such immigration has a positive effect. But in the case of blacks, that positive effect was swamped by all the bad notions and habits that blacks adopted from liberals … which the Japanese American community did not adopt. By the way, do you know what recent black immigrants in general think of native born and educated blacks? Here, read this

Blah, blah, blah nothing of substance here.

http://blackpeople.tribe.net/thread/6a28eaac-07c6-4376-ba08-c78010a5b1f6

LOL! Did you really just quote someone else’s personal anecdote as evidence? Google failing you today?

:)

Glad to see the black community fighting amongst itself makes you happy.

What? You don't think black poverty was LBJs central concern :words: You read that speech, KF, and try to convince me that I misconstrued the intent of the WOP.

*yawn*

Now mind you, the whole WOP began as an effort to eliminate poverty in the black community.

Nice goalpost switching, you claimed that the WOP concerned entirely with welfare for blacks. Not even close to mostly. :rolleyes:

You are aware that your challenge was that I support the assertion that trillions of welfare dollars have gone to blacks. As I noted earlier, even if blacks only get 1/3rd of the total (and they actually got more than that), I've proven they got trillions since 1964.

Fine, you got me there. Your first point so far. ;)

Furthermore, shouldn't we consider the percentage of each population group that is getting welfare, rather than just treating black and white populations as if they were equal in number? Even in 2008, the black population is 1/6th the size of the white population (including hispanics) and 1/5th the size of the non-hispanic white population. Blacks are clearly getting a disproportionate share of welfare, KF.

LOL! So you’re claiming that the more impoverished demographic should get equal welfare as less impoverished demographics in the name of fairness? Sheesh, thank god I’m not a free-market capitalist. :rolleyes:

And back in the 1960s and 1970s when I'm asking why blacks didn't achieve what Japanese Americans achieved in the 50s, blacks got an even more disproportionate share compared to whites and hispanics. For example, in 1972 over 43% of blacks were on welfare in one form or another. Yet they comprised less than 10% of the overall population.

The same as above; you’re saying welfare should be spread evenly along racial lines instead of along poverty lines? :rolleyes:

Do you know that in 1992 almost 40 percent of AFDC clients were black single mothers? Only 38% were white women with children. Even though blacks comprised only 1/6th the white population?

GASP! Impoverished mothers were seeking aid to assist their children? Oh won’t someone please think of the white children…and only the white children, please? :(

Do you know that between 1995 and 1999, the proportion of white families on welfare fell from 35.9% to 30.5%. In contrast, the black and latino proportions grew from 36.9% to 42.1% and 37.2% to 38.2%, respectively.

How did Latinos get into that figure anyway? I’m sorry BAC, but these paragraphs are filled with far too much illicit racism and hypocrisy for me to take seriously.

When are you going to see the obvious … that the WOP did not work. That it actually made things worse by preventing blacks from doing what Japanese Americans did back in the 40s and 50s. And that it is now doing to hispanics and whites what it did to blacks. Because liberals will not learn from history.

How did welfare make black people poor? :newlol

And by the way, in making that claim of yours, are you aware that you are including Social Security as welfare. Gee … don't democrats and socialist always insist in discussions about SS that SS is not welfare? Take SS out of the picture and what are the percentages, KF? :)

I don’t know about other liberals and I can’t speak for socialists but I consider SS to be welfare.

:rolleyes:

Still nothing to say I see.

[Juniversal]

I don't believe that at all. I just believe that instead of doing what Japanese Americans did when facing disenfranchisment, racism, discrimination and economic difficulties at the end of WW2, blacks foolishly listened to socialist/communist democrats and black racebaiting ministers. And have ended up making themselves victicrats who are now dependent on government for whatever handouts those democrats decide to hand out to garner their votes (after, of course, stealing that wealth from the pockets of those who actually earned it … those who are probably most responsible for any increases in the standard of living that blacks have actually experienced in the past.) :DAs I mentioned earlier, this is a very incongruous comparison. The current Japanese population is around the same as that of African immigrants (around 1 million rounding down) while there's about 40 million African-Americans (39 million excluding African immigrants). Population size alone makes the comparison incredibly unfit.

According to this (http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312008/) artical "After the Japanese were let out of the camps, a majority of them returned to the Pacific Coast". While I wouldn't take this artical as gospel it's one of the few I could find on the Japanese post internment. Also this (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/27092/the_effects_of_pearl_harbor_on_japanese_pg3.html?c at=37) artical claims there were about 40,000 Japanese immigrants interned and 70,000 Japanese Americans interned. Unfortunately I don't know what the entire population was during the early 1940's, how many migrated out of the U.S. after internment or what occupations the Japanese were well represented in.

So were the ways in which Japanese immigrants were viewed. Those views had several generations to solidify before WW2 arrived … which might be why Americans were so quick to let more than a 100,000 innocent people be rounded up and treated so unfairly during and after the war.Clearly prior to WW2 the Japanese were on the periphery of society as far as politicians and law makers were concerned. The overarching discriminatory legislation was directed at blacks or at least had the intentions of disenfranchising (and it was successful at doing so) blacks. No doubt there was anti-Asian or anti-Japanese sentiment prior to and obviously after the war but anti-black discrimination and racism pervaded the entire country in a much more perceptable and violent way.


And you'd have to be extremely dense not to look at the data I've provided and see that the WOP has been a complete failure and has only worsened the situation of blacks in America.And you'd have to be extremely dense not to recognize that the statement you replied to had absolutey nothing to do with the War On Poverty or it's success/failure. ;)


But it was declining just as fast (in fact faster) before the WOP so you can't claim reductions since then are the result of the WOP. And while there are undulations, those undulations can be rationally interpreted, as I did in my last post to KF, in a manner that only reinforces my assertions. And every attempt to come up with a contrary explanation (for example, KF's observations about Reagan and Clinton) have been spectacular fails.So we can't conclusively say that the War on Poverty was responsible for any decline in the poverty rate but alternatively we can't conclude it had no part. We can also conclude the increase in poverty is related to the reccesion we're in and it'll consequently fall again once the unemployment rate falls.



Which was another spectacular fail.I have yet to see the "liberal assualt on marriage" from you or Coulter.



LOL! No, none at all, other than the fact that not one shred of evidence (video, audio, eyewitness, policeman, etc) backs up his claim … other than the fact that he refused to take a lie detector test regarding the claim (even after being offered $100,000 to the United Negro College Fund if he would and passed it) … other than the fact that even another member of the caucus who was there standing near Lewis said he didn't hear any slurs … other than the fact that Lewis has shown himself to be a racebaiter in the past. No, none at all. :rolleyes:I don't doubt for a second Lewis is being honest. Even if he misheard. And I see it was Right Wing hack Andrew Breitbart offering the $10,000 (http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2010/03/25/2010-a-race-odyssey-disproving-a-negative-for-cash-prizes-or-how-the-civil-rights-movement-jumped-the-shark/). Honestly if I was Lewis i'd feel Breitbart was insulting my intelligence. I wouldn't give that clown the time of day either.


You yourself said he's only representative of what the black community in general believes, Juniversal. Are you changing your mind? :DPlaying dumb are we?



And you don't think Lewis' and Bond's is? :rolleye:Inflammatory to who? Me? Not at all. I consider your words inflammatory but i'm sure you'd claim it's only because "I hate to hear the truth" or some nonsense like that. :rolleyes: I have yet to hear Bond or Lewis say something comparable to Wrights lauding "the chickens coming home to roust" on 9/11 or the like.


LOL! Almost every other statement in Wright's *sermons* was a call for "social justice". For example … http://www.loyolaphoenix.com/2.3233/the-rev-wright-calls-for-social-justice-1.332810 . Weren't you listening?Thanks for proving my point that Social Justice is not a word exclusively used by communist. Therefore it is not a code word for communism. ;)


And you think he's changed? What do you base that on? He's changed about at much as Van Jones changed … and Van Jones admitted that he only changed his rhetoric to make himself more palatable. His views were still the same. Same thing applies to Mike Klonsky. You are foolish if you think otherwise.I should have said "so Klonsky IS an avowed communist". I wasn't attempting to proclaim that he changed his allegiances.



But Mike Klonsky, who has been closely tied to Obama for years, was/is a communist. And so was/is Bill Ayers. So was Van Jones. Indeed, it is surprising how many of those surrounding Obama were/are communists spouting the message of "social justice". :DIrrelevant. My comment was only that "not all who campaign on social justice are communist" which you helped prove earlier with Rev. Wrights comments. Thanks BAC. :D

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

1. I deny that my analysis of Reagan "spectacularly failed". Clinton indeed did a good job lowering the poverty-rate, in no small part to his brilliant economic policies. But Reagan failed to lower poverty rates to pre-recession levels. It's not my fault that BAC can't read a graph.

2. Social Justice being a communist buzzword is at the heart of BAC's political viewpoint. He has a solid political base consisting of anti-liberalism mixed with outright communist-paranoia and held together with "social justice".

[BeAChooser]

My statement is correct

No, it is not. When will liberals realize that handing someone money does not take them out of poverty. They are still poor … you are just artificially giving them an *income* that then gives the appearance they are no longer poor. Take that safety net away, and you quickly discover you've accomplished nothing. In many cases, you've just made them dependent. Taken away their self esteem. That's the real test. Sure, the government can make money by the truckloads and hand it out so that not one person meets whatever definition of poor is current … but have you really solved the problem? No. You've just delayed facing it a few years until the entire system collapses … all because you've taken money from producers and given it to non-producers. It is a ticking time bomb, as we are now discovering.

and you're simply reading too far into the statement

I'm sure you'd have been content to let readers interpret that statement more broadly … had I said nothing. :D

I even clarified my position in my previous post; no amount of welfare can replace economic prosperity but zero welfare (and I'll add the qualifier "weak welfare" to add further clarification) creates inefficiencies when dealing with poverty rates.

Actually what you tried to do was imply that folks like me are in favor of zero welfare. And you'd have been content to leave that impression in reader's minds … had I said nothing.

The topic initially began to ridicule a tea party leader who was attempting to defend his fellow baggers against charges of racism before he released a statement that was decidedly racist.

But what we were discussing at that precise moment was a comparison between that happened to Japanese-Americans following WW2 and what happened to blacks after the WOP began in 1964. Why did one group become prosperous and the other not? You tried to suddenly change the subject when it became apparent what the reasons might be.

you'll notice that the WoP doesn't enter the debate until you bring it up here in post #435

Guess you missed the mentions of the WOP in posts #376, #390 and 401.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Social Security in the 1930's through 1950's was by and large not sold to the public as a welfare program because it required most people put money into the system in order to expect anything out of it.

Semantics, it doesn't matter how it was sold to the public

Really? Thanks for demonstrating what communist admirers think. :D

the fact of the matter is that no sane individual considers Social Security to be anything other than a form of welfare.

But it wasn't just welfare during the period you are claiming it reduced poverty rates. The anti-poverty (i.e., wealth redistribution) aspects of SS were tiny compared to LBJ's WOP and what followed in terms of the amount of money thrown at poverty. In 1965, after the WOP had begun, about 3% of GDP was being spent on various types of assistance (http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/socialpolicy/Documents/prp01/images/prp_no_01_new-15.gif ). Within a decade that percentage had doubled. By the 1990s it was triple that percentage of GDP. And the amounts before 1964 were even smaller. Much smaller, else it wouldn't have been called a War On Poverty. In fact, just look at how SS expenditures grew over the years: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/wp/wp-hw/vol1/images/f1-1-3.gif . They were miniscule before 1964.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
In fact, in the early years the plan was going to take in far more money than it would pay out.

As do most programs, are you arguing that this fact makes it "not-welfare"?

No, most welfare programs do not do that. The unfunded liabilities for the Social Security system currently stand at more than $17 trillion (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662 ). And they only headed towards such astronomical heights after 1964 and the liberal thinking that made SS mostly welfare took control. And Medicare's unfunded liabilities are even larger thanks to that same liberal thinking.

So you qualify welfare as any program which gives money to individuals who don't pay into the system?

It obviously depends on how much they pay into the system, relative to what they will be taking out. Don't you agree?

Of course I never claimed once that the drop in poverty was due solely to SS.

Fine. But you did say that the drop was most drastic after SS began, implying that it's SS that is mostly responsible for that, aren't you? Otherwise, I fail to see why you'd even bother to mention SS. And the fact is SS didn't end poverty. All it has done has hide it and delay the impact on our society. And perhaps make it worse in the end.


Also, am I the only one who finds it extremely ironic that you quoted a paper from a Keynesian source?

Data is data. It's the interpretation that makes something Keynesian or not.

Quote:
Since World War II, when the fisc has been large enough to matter, public policy has reduced poverty

Well obviously I think that's nonsense … which is why I didn't quote it.

as a matter of fact I often hoist the post-war economic expansion up as the capability of Keynesian economics to produce economic prosperity while reducing unemployment and the poverty rate.

Indeed you do. And it only took a little war (and a few tens of million dead) for socialists to achieve that glorious post war expansion. :rolleyes:

While I'd like to see the quote from that article which states that the poverty rate dropped 20% during the 20's

Looking into this, I see I may have been wrong about that figure. I don't know why I thought those two sources supported that claim. Sorry.

But I do find that it's widely reported (e.g., http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/The-Effects-of-Welfare-Reform ) that during the 1920s more than half of Americans were poor by today's standards. The question is what was the poverty rate in 1934 when SS as we know it began? Well here's a source (http://www.raybinassociates.com/downloads/giving_recovery.pdf ) that says the poverty rate was above 40% in the 1930s. FDR himself observed that elderly poverty (the groups with the highest poverty rate) was 40% in New York in 1934. So let's just use 40% even though FDR also said in 1937 that "one-third of the nation" was "ill-housed, ill-clad, [and] ill-nourished". Seems to me, those facts suggest the poverty rate had dropped (from 50%) before SS even began. And in 1959, if it was still 35% (as indicated in http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/business/yourmoney/16view.html ), that would suggest a drop of just 5% or less in the 25 years after SS went into effect. Given those facts, it's hard to conclude that SS did what you claimed. That it wasn't in fact a huge fail as poverty reduction programs go.

Further evidence that poverty rates were dropping before Social Security came along are facts like these (http://www.baas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=217%3Ajames-t-patterson-the-welfare-state-in-america-1930-1980&catid=18&Itemid=11#ch1 ):


However one measured that progress—by the quality of diets, housing, availability of home appliances, spread of electricity and central heating—most Americans were much better off in 1929 than they had been in 1880 or 1900. In 1929 only 3.2 percent of the labor force was unemployed. By then, even working-class families could afford to buy cars. Most dramatic, perhaps, were improvements in health which were reflected in statistics on longevity. Life expectancy at birth was 47 years in 1900, 60 in 1930. There were 7 million Americans aged 55 or more in 1900, and 15 million in 1930. … snip … Moreover, by the 1920s poverty seemed to be fading away as the second and third generations of once poor immigrants moved up the occupational ladder and out of their urban ghettos. Observers who perceived poverty in this way were admittedly speculating, for they lacked reliable studies on the extent to which poverty was chronic or culturally transmitted. But subsequent historical research suggests that social mobility for working-class Americans at the time was indeed substantial. Probably at least 30 percent of workers raised in blue-collar households in various American cities in the early twentieth century attained middle-class occupational status between 1880 and 1930.


How could life for most Americans be so much better in 1930 than it was in 1880 or 1900, unless the poverty rate was dropping before the introduction of SS?

Here is something else to consider:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3401803918.html


Before the establishment of social security, workers pursued a range of strategies to prepare themselves and their spouses for old age—relying primarily on the market and the family. The historians Carole Haber and Brian Gratton have shown that in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, average annual household incomes of those sixty and over were only modestly lower than those in their forties and fifties and were rising over time along with overall economic growth. Most men continued to work into old age, but many were able to retire. The labor force participation rate of men aged sixty-five and over was about 76 percent to 78 percent between 1850 and 1880; thus the retirement rate was 22 percent to 24 percent. The retirement rate rose to 35 percent in 1900 and 42 percent in 1930. Social critics worried that elderly workers were adversely affected by industrialization and that many were becoming unemployable and were being thrown onto the "industrial scrap heap." Research by economic historians has shown that this was probably not the case, as increasing retirement rates were driven by rising incomes.

That seems to suggest we've been fed a lot of lies about the need for SS in the first place.

And consider what this source says:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_1/17_1_1.pdf


Studies in the 1920s demonstrated that there was very little meaningful problem of elderly poverty and privation to be solved by a compulsory retirement program. With very few exceptions, the elderly simply kept working, retired on private savings or pensions (which were rapidly increasing in number and value), or were taken care of by family. Private charity was available for the two or three percent of the aged who fell through the cracks. Things were improving steadily, and the public at that time strongly opposed governmental creation of a compulsory social security system.


Also this:


These statistics, of course, do not tell all. They need some comparative dimension. In some ways the poverty of the 1930s was perhaps more easy to bear than that, say, of the 1960s. During the depression years around 50 per cent of the poor were able to supplement their diets through a little farming of their own. Thirty years later, about 85 per cent of poor people did not live on or near farms; for them, nothing was free. Americans in the 1930s, moreover, did not expect to own many expensive gadgets. Some 40 per cent of households in 1940 lacked bathtubs, 50 per cent central heating. By the mid-1960s, the vast majority of poor people in the United States had to have electricity and television; most owned cars and home appliances. Poor people in the 1930s, lacking television, mostly untravelled, were less aware of what the middle classes had. Their sense of relative deprivation was less acute.[20] Their very marginality, especially in the rural areas of the South and West, helped account for their essential invisibility to the public eye and for their neglect before 1930 by policy makers.


All in all, I really don't think we can conclude with confidence that it was SS that was responsible for most of the drop in poverty rates that occurred between 1930 and 1960. Because the economy wasn't standing still … no more than it was from 1900 to 1930.


I explain it mostly by pointing out that you've established a strawman that you can use and now you'll refuse to let go of it.


I'm not dealing with strawmen. I simply asked you a very simple question, KF, about something that YOU claimed. You wrote in post #436 that "Following the passing of the EOA in 1964 the poverty rate in the country dropped by two percent and then another two percent after the passing of SSA of 1965. By 1966 the poverty rate was 15.7%, down from 19% in 1964." You were clearly implying that the EOA and SSA were the cause of that decrease in poverty. So I'll ask you again. How do you explain a nearly 4% drop in poverty when the amount of welfare that resulted from the EOA and SSA was tiny in those first two years (because it took time for a welfare pipeline to be established) as proven by the figure I supplied earlier? Why were the subsequent decreases in poverty so small in comparison, in the years after that when welfare spending was so much, much greater? Those facts seems counterintuitive to what you are claiming about welfare spending reducing poverty. No strawman, just a simply question. Which you seem desperate to ignore.

This graph (source) clearly shows there has been a huge decline in welfare benefits since their peak in the late 70's.

Whether that's true or not, that still doesn't explain why in the timeframe from 1969 to 1978, the poverty rate dropped less than it did from 1964 to 1968 (or for that matter from 1959 to 1963) … even though welfare spending had increased 5 fold in total (as indicated by my source) and the size of welfare benefits to given individuals had increased 30% (as indicated by your source)? And then even in the years after that, while the amount of benefits per individual receiving welfare MAY have dropped by 40%, the total amount of welfare spent skyrocketed by at least a factor of 10 at a time when the poverty rates started going back up. Again, that's counterintuitive to the notion that welfare spending reduces poverty.

Say what you will about my admiration of certain communists but at least I know how to read a graph. Look at the graph again Choosey old buddy. You're looking for dips in poverty and I'm looking at trends wondering why poverty in the 70's-90's was utterly unable to recover following recession.

LOL! No, you're just desperately moving goalposts in the hope that noone will notice your lies. You stated that your figure showed that "massive increases in poverty were seen follow the deep cuts that both Reagan and Clinton managed to secure." You never even mentioned recessions in your comment. And what I showed is that you were wrong, using your own graph. What I showed is that half the "massive increases" in poverty occurred BEFORE Reagan even took office and that within 2 years of taking office his policies had caused the poverty rate to start dropping, which it did for the next 6 consecutive years. And I also showed that your graph shows poverty was increasing BEFORE Clinton took office and started dropping almost immediately AFTER he was in office. The opposite of what you claimed. I think everyone can see that your current spinning is only compounding a lie.

Reagen entered at the end of a recession, true, the poverty-rate peaked in 1983. What I've noticed, and you failed to notice, is that poverty rates did not return to pre-recession levels, in particular 1979.

LOL! Your figure shows that the poverty rate was climbing well before the 1979 recession began, and continued to climb between the 1979 and the 1981-82 recession. Explain that? To me, that suggests the recession probably had less to do with that increase in poverty than you want people to believe. And your graph shows that when the 1982 recession ended, with Reagan now in office, the poverty rate immediately started to drop. And contrary to what you claimed, it dropped to below the level it was before the 1981-82 recession began. Likewise, in 1990 the poverty rate was climbing well before the recession and continued to climb long after the recession … until Clinton came into office and Republicans forced him to cut welfare and taxes. Then again the poverty rate fell and fell until it was below what it was at the start of the 1990 recession.

If less welfare is what we need to stir economic development and lower poverty levels then the welfare cuts enacted by Reagan during his presidency coupled with economic prosperity should have been enough to drop poverty levels to the 1979 level at least.

That it didn't drop below 1979 levels during Reagan's term just proves it is much harder to undo the damage done by socialists to economies than to damage them in the first place. In fact, it may take generations to undo the damage done by Obama and the current crop of democrat socialist/communists. If we even can at this point.

poverty exploded in the inner cities of America during the Reagan years

That doesn't seem to match what your chart shows. It shows that the poverty rate went down during Reagan's term. Yet you are now claiming that it "exploded" during his term? :rolleyes: Looks to me like liars always have trouble keeping the lies straight. But socialist and communist ones don't seem to care. They've gotten good over the years at telling obvious lies with a straight face.

Of course, if the implication by your "" smiley is true, that Clinton did not secure deep welfare cuts, then it's a gaffe on my part and a major blow to your entire argument.

That's the problem with those who admire communists and those who are communists. They tend to overlook the impact of economic growth in the equation. And how lowering taxes stimulate that growth.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The US went from spending half a trillion dollars on welfare in the 70s to spending almost 3 times that in the 80s. Here's a chart that shows Welfare spending over time. … snip …

Review the information I've given you, weep, then return to me. Hopefully you'll finally realize that your far-right sources are lying to you.

LOL! You can't honestly think that, given all the lies you've spouted in this discussion so far, folks are going to believe welfare spending didn't triple, just because you claim it? That's pathetic, KF. You are more than welcome to try and prove this chart is inaccurate:

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/12C8BF372772E8472BD86BF1DEA5EF8B.gif

But I know you can't do it.


Fact. You handed me a graph which states such.


Sorry, but that graph does NOT show the black poverty rate "has been steadily decreasing". In fact, it's been going back up the last decade.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The poverty rate was dropping rapidly in the 60s, but as I've already shown, it was dropping just as rapidly in the 10 years before the WOP began.

You're aware that my comment pertains to blacks and not the population at large, right? Got a graph for that?

I already provided that information to you in post #435. First, I quoted http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm stating that in 1959 the "non-white" poverty rate was 58.2% and in 1964 it was 49.8%. In the 5 years leading up to the start of the WOP, the non-white poverty rate dropped 8.4%. What caused it to do that, KF?

I also quoted http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864 saying that the "poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960." That's a 40% drop in the 20 years before the WOP. Again, what caused that to happen, KF?


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
WOP spending probably had little to do with the post 1964 drop. In the late 60s and early 70s, when WOP spending really began to kick in, the poverty rate stopped dropping and essentially leveled off … remaining relatively constant throughout the 70s. Likely, WOP spending was the cause of that.

Do you have evidence for that or just sheer conjecture?

Better than any conjecture you might offer to explain that. And yes, I have offered a number of sources that back up that assertion. But I guess you just ignored them as well. Guess there is none so blind as a communist admirer. :D

And, also as I noted, Reagan wishes he had Carter's poverty rates.

LOL! Carter started his term with a poverty rate of about 11.5%. He ended it with a poverty rate of about 14%. What an accomplishment. :rolleyes: Also, don't forget to mention all the other wonderful things Carter left us. Like double digit inflation. You, of course, are much to young to remember what that was like … but who knows, thanks to Obama (the new Carter) maybe you will get a taste of that too. :D

If by "cutting taxes" and inspiring confidence in America you mean Paul Volcker's fantastic use of textbook Keynesian economics, then sure!

Volcker's achievement was implimenting monetarism, not Keynesian economics: http://spectator.org/archives/2008/10/29/its-best-keynes-remain-forgott . Even wikipedia covers this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism


The rise of the popularity of monetarism also picked up in political circles when Keynesian economics seemed unable to explain or cure the seemingly contradictory problems of rising unemployment and inflation in response to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1972 and the oil shocks of 1973. On the one hand, higher unemployment seemed to call for Keynesian reflation, but on the other hand rising inflation seemed to call for Keynesian disinflation. The result was a significant disillusionment with Keynesian demand management: a Democratic President Jimmy Carter appointed a monetarist Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker who made inflation fighting his primary objective, and restricted the money supply (in accordance with the Friedman rule) to tame inflation in the economy. The result was the creation of the desired price stability.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Then the rate started going up after Reagan left office, again despite still even more massive welfare spending.

And while benefits were still dropping.

But total spending wasn't dropping. It was going up because more and more people were joining the welfare roles. It jumped a lot after Reagan left office: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/CDA1001_chart4/CDA1001_chart4.ashx?w=750&h=553&as=1 .

First, Clinton raised taxes when he entered office. He proposed to cut $500 billion out of the deficit by reducing spending and increasing taxes. And As a matter of fact, the economy was already in a state of recovery before Clinton signed the Republicans proposed tax cuts in 1997, which heavily favored the rich. Review my graph; poverty was in decline long before the tax cuts were passed in 1997. I hope the readers can appreciate the irony in you saying I’m the one attempting to deceive them.

But you are. Your figure shows that poverty rates started down towards the end of 1992 (and the rate of increase was slowing years before that). What happened in about that time? Well the graph (linked above) shows that both Carter and Clinton massively increased welfare spending. It increased over 100% between 1989 and 1996. Like I said, print enough money, hand it out, and you can make the poverty rate go to zero. But the people are still poor … still unemployed … still going nowhere.

And note in my graph that from 1997 to 2000, welfare spending stabilized even though poverty rates continued to drop (in fact, they even dropped faster after 1997 according to the graph you posted earlier). Now how do you explain that? Well the reason is that the economy began to really take off after the tax cuts in 1997. Here:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2008/03/Tax-Cuts-Not-the-Clinton-Tax-Hike-Produced-the-1990s-Boom


Tax Cuts, Not the Clinton Tax Hike, Produced the 1990s Boom

… snip ...

The Clinton defense of higher taxes rests largely on a cursory review of the economic history of the 1990s. Whatever the theoretical debates, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding: President Clinton raised taxes, yet the economy grew, and grew smartly in the latter half of the 1990s. Economists have occasionally been accused of seeing something work in practice and then proving that it cannot work in theory. However, this is not the case here.

History suggests that the economy performed reasonably well in the years immediately following the tax hike, but history is not causality, and history sometimes needs a more careful examination to tell its story faithfully. Following the tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut.

Contrasting the period immediately after the tax hike and the period immediately after the tax cut, the evidence strongly suggests that the tax hike likely slowed the economy as traditional theory suggests, and that it was the tax cut that gave the economy renewed vigor--and gave history the real 1990s boom. In other words, the Clinton defense of higher taxes does not hold up.

… snip ...

The Clinton years present two consecutive periods as experiments of the effects of tax policy. The first period, from 1993 to 1996, began with a significant tax increase as the economy was accelerating out of recession. The second period, from 1997 to 2000, began with a modest tax cut as the economy should have settled into a normal growth period. The economy was decidedly stronger following the tax cut than it was following the tax increase.

… snip …

The economy averaged 4.2 percent real growth per year from 1997 to 2000--a full percentage point higher than during the expansion following the 1993 tax hike (illustrated in the graph above). Employment increased by another 11.5 million jobs, which is roughly comparable to the job growth in the preceding four-year period. Real wages, however, grew at 6.5 percent, which is much stronger than the 0.8 percent growth of the preceding period (illustrated in the graph below). Finally, total market capitalization of the S&P 500 rose an astounding 95 percent. The period from 1997 to 2000 forms the memory of the booming 1990s, and it followed the passage of tax relief that was originally opposed by President Clinton.

… snip …

The evidence is persuasive that the tax increase probably slowed the economy compared to the growth it would have achieved and that the subsequent tax cuts of 1997, not the tax increases, were the source of the acceleration in real growth in the latter half of the decade.

In short, had Clinton not increased taxes, history shows that the growth in GDP would likely have been much higher than it was (it grew 7-8% after the 1981/82 recession ended, for instance). And poverty rates would probably have dropped more than they did.

It’s called Keynesian economics, and it’s responsible for the major economic recovery following WWII and it allowed economic growth in the US despite Reagan’s terrible supply-side, voodoo economics.

GARBAGE.

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/40499302.html


"In Keynesian policy, unemployment is never to be corrected by any reduction of money-wage-rates," Mr. Hazlitt summarizes. "Keynes recommends two main remedies. One is deficit spending (sometimes euphemistically called government 'investment'). How good is this remedy? It was tried in the United States (partly because of Keynes' recommendations) for a full decade. What were the results? ... The central and decisive fact is that heavy deficits were accompanied by mass unemployment ..." in the 1930s.

"The other main Keynesian remedy for unemployment is low interest rates, artificially produced by 'the Monetary Authority.' Keynes incidentally admits ... that such artificially low interest rates can only be produced by printing more money, i.e. by deliberate inflation. But we may let this pass for a moment. The question immediately before us is: Did low interest rates prevent mass unemployment? ...

"In sum, over this period of a dozen years low interest rates did not eliminate unemployment. On the contrary, unemployment actually increased as interest rates went down."

Hazlitt proceeds to demonstrate that from 1949 to 1958, when the same policy of artificially pushing down interest rates was tried, "the relationship of unemployment to interest rates is almost the exact opposite of that suggested by Keynesian theory."


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9931


The idea of using fiscal policy to boost the economy during a downturn was championed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s. Keynes argued that market economies can get stuck in a deep rut and that only large infusions of government stimulus can revive growth. He posited that high unemployment in the Great Depression was due to "sticky wages" and other market problems that prevented the return of full-employment equilibrium. Interestingly, Keynes did not offer any evidence that sticky wages were a serious problem, and later research indicated that wages actually fell substantially during the 1930s.

... snip ...

Keynesians thought that fiscal stimulus would work by counteracting the problem of sticky wages. Workers would be fooled into accepting lower real wages as price levels rose. Rising nominal wages would spur added work efforts and increased hiring by businesses. However, later analysis revealed that the government can't routinely fool private markets, because people have foresight and they are generally rational. Keynes erred in ignoring the actual microeconomic behaviour of individuals and businesses.
The dominance of Keynesianism ended in the 1970s. Government spending and deficits ballooned, but the result was higher inflation, not lower unemployment. These events, and the rise in monetarism led by Milton Friedman, ended the belief in an unemployment-inflation trade-off. Keynesianism was flawed and its prescription of active fiscal intervention was misguided. Indeed, Friedman's research showed that the Great Depression was caused by a failure of government monetary policy, not a failure of private markets, as Keynes had claimed.

... snip ...

It is difficult to find a macroeconomics textbook these days that discusses Keynesian fiscal stimulus as a policy tool without serious flaws, which is why the current $800-billion proposal has taken many macroeconomists by surprise. John Cochrane of the University of Chicago recently noted that the idea of fiscal stimulus is "taught only for its fallacies" in university courses these days. Thomas Sargent of New York University noted that "the calculations that I have seen supporting the stimulus package are back-of-the-envelope ones that ignore what we have learned in the last 60 years of macroeconomic research."



In the 1960s, Keynesian economics was mainstream, but by the end of the 70s it had been discredited. Obama's stimulus is in the process of doing the same thing that discredited it … producing high unemployment and high inflation (everyone agrees, it's coming). Seems that socialists/communists will never learn and are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over until they drag an economy down.

Here's a source that does a great job of taking Keynesian economics apart:

http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YzVhZmI5MDAxMDEyZGIzMWVlZTUzZWU1ZDY2ZjExNTQ=

I'll quote a few of the notable passages from it:


Democrats and their favorite economists spent the past 25 years bemoaning the “twin deficits” of the 1980s and then claimed that the strong economy of the late 1990s was the result of President Clinton’s fiscal restraint — the precise opposite of “fiscal stimulus.” Also working in the anti-Keynesian mode, former treasury secretary Robert Rubin co-authored a 2004 paper with forecaster Allen Sinai and Peter Orzsag of the Brookings Institution, who now has been tapped by Obama to lead the Office of Management and Budget. They argued that “budget deficits decrease national saving, which reduces domestic investment and increases borrowing abroad.” Big budget deficits, warned Rubin, Orzsag, and Sinai, would “reduce future national income” and risk a “decline in confidence [which] can reduce stock prices.”

... snip ...

Many of the economists who repeatedly prophesied in ominous fashion about the dangers of relatively trivial deficit spending during the Reagan and Bush years have inexplicably become enthusiastic supporters of deficits likely to exceed 10 percent of GDP during the Obama administration.

... snip ...

In 1978, future Nobel laureate Robert Lucas Jr. wrote an obituary for these ideas, “After Keynesian Economics,” along with Thomas Sargent of the University of Minnesota. They showed that “Keynesian . . . predictions were wildly incorrect and that the doctrine on which they were based is fundamentally flawed.” The hubris of expert demand-management through fiscal policy should have suffered a permanent loss of credibility 30 years ago. But memory is short.


I especially like this ...


If Keynesian theorists refuse to accept any evidence as contradicting their theory, they are practicing a secular theology, not science.



Still not convinced?

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/10/29/its-best-keynes-remain-forgott .


It not only explains the flaws in Keynesian economics but shows a striking comparison in performance, when it comes to inflation and the frequency of recessions, between the Keynesian approach and the approach that Friedman proposed replace it, Monetarism, wherein controlling monetary growth, controls inflation. It notes that "an examination of post-WWII until monetarism's successful implementation by Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker in the 1980s shows the U.S. experienced eight recessions during 1947-1982. During this 36-year period, CPI-U inflation (year-over-year) was above four percent in 19 years." In comparison, "monetarism has almost eliminated U.S. inflation. During 1983-2007, inflation has been above four percent only five times. Similarly, only two recessions have occurred, one of which was the technical recession following 9/11/01."


Sorry, KF, but the data on recessions proves that Keynes was just plain wrong. In case after case, doing just the opposite of what Keynes advocated led to short recessions and shorter depressions. And in the case of the Great Depression, I showed that doing what Keynes suggested prolonged it. So if you really want us to believe Keynes had it right, provide historical examples where massive government spending successfully shortened recessions or depressions ... rather than lengthen them ... and where massive government spending reduced unemployment. I won't hold my breath. You certainly won't do it with the current Obama stimulus. :D

And by the way, were Keynes alive today, I doubt he'd be supporting Obama's spending programs, precisely because they are going to be inflationary … far above the amount Keynes said was tolerable.

I know you don't like to see blacks in that light, but they've chosen to make themselves dependent on government, haven't emphasized education to the same degree Japanese Americans did, and tend to cry racism at the drop of a hat, even when it's obvious that racism is not a factor. Those are the facts.

No, those are stereotypes

No, those are facts that everyone but communist admirers seem to know. :D

Liberal arts educated? English major? Writing books for a living? I’m not educated in liberal arts, nor am I an English major, and I never said I wanted to write books for a living.

Books, plays, whatever. And I only assumed you were an English major because you seem so hung up on correct spelling and grammar. And you claim you are not liberal arts educated? Call me a skeptic. :D

LOL! Did you really just quote someone else’s personal anecdote as evidence? Google failing you today?

So you think there's no friction between African immigrants and native-American blacks?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002019062_africanamer29.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104652090

Glad to see the black community fighting amongst itself makes you happy.

I think a little more independent thought is needed in a group where 90 plus percent vote democrat in elections. :)


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
What? You don't think black poverty was LBJs central concern You read that speech, KF, and try to convince me that I misconstrued the intent of the WOP.

*yawn*

Glad to see you are bored by the plight of blacks as outlined by LBJ.


Nice goalpost switching, you claimed that the WOP concerned entirely with welfare for blacks.

No, I did not. Stop lying.

Fine, you got me there. Your first point so far.

LOL! Ever notice how clueless communist admirers are, folks? :D


So you’re claiming that the more impoverished demographic should get equal welfare as less impoverished demographics in the name of fairness?

No, that clearly was not my point. Maybe *clueless* doesn't fit. Maybe you just like to engage in dishonest debate.

thank god I’m not a free-market capitalist.

No, you certainly aren't that. Not if you admire communists.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And back in the 1960s and 1970s when I'm asking why blacks didn't achieve what Japanese Americans achieved in the 50s, blacks got an even more disproportionate share compared to whites and hispanics. For example, in 1972 over 43% of blacks were on welfare in one form or another. Yet they comprised less than 10% of the overall population.

The same as above; you’re saying welfare should be spread evenly along racial lines instead of along poverty lines?

Yep. That's it. You enjoy dishonest debate. Could you be a lawyer? :D

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Do you know that in 1992 almost 40 percent of AFDC clients were black single mothers? Only 38% were white women with children. Even though blacks comprised only 1/6th the white population?

GASP! Impoverished mothers were seeking aid to assist their children? Oh won’t someone please think of the white children…and only the white children, please?

Gee, KF, rather than toss out red herrings, can't you find even one valid explanation why the black community wasn't able to do what Japanese Americans did in the two decades after WW2? Can't you find even one valid explanation for why trillions and trillions of welfare dollars failed to impact black poverty? Why a segment of society that was given trillions and trillions of dollars had a poverty rate 600% percent higher than everyone else? It's almost like they weren't trying.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Do you know that between 1995 and 1999, the proportion of white families on welfare fell from 35.9% to 30.5%. In contrast, the black and latino proportions grew from 36.9% to 42.1% and 37.2% to 38.2%, respectively.

How did Latinos get into that figure anyway? I’m sorry BAC, but these paragraphs are filled with far too much illicit racism and hypocrisy for me to take seriously.

LOL! You are clearly on the run here, KF. And everyone can see it.

How did welfare make black people poor?

I think everyone can see there's no sense in continuing this, KF. You are on the run now. Not just playing clueless, but dumb … acting like that has never been discussed. But that's what democrats/socialists/communists and even communist admirers do when confronted with facts and history. :D

[BeAChooser]

Population size alone makes the comparison incredibly unfit.

I see you are now desperately clinging to any rationale you can think of to ignore the obvious. Oh well. :D


No doubt there was anti-Asian or anti-Japanese sentiment prior to and obviously after the war but anti-black discrimination and racism pervaded the entire country in a much more perceptable and violent way.

But not necessarily in 1964. Again, you need to compare the Japanese-American situation following WW2 with what blacks faced in 1964. And I don't think it was all that different. And then ask yourself why one group prospered, and the other still hasn't.

So we can't conclusively say that the War on Poverty was responsible for any decline in the poverty rate but alternatively we can't conclude it had no part.

As I've noted, you can print lots of money …. mountains of it … and hand it out, but you don't really end poverty that way. All you do is convert a material poverty into dependence … a poverty of the soul. One that breeds feelings of undeserved entitlement and resentment. And all you do it take money from producers and give it to non-producers. And in the end that will only create more poverty than otherwise would have occurred.

We can also conclude the increase in poverty is related to the reccesion we're in and it'll consequently fall again once the unemployment rate falls.

No. Look at what the poverty rate did during the economic boom that followed 9/11 and the 2000 recession: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif . It went up.

I have yet to see the "liberal assualt on marriage" from you or Coulter.

:rolleyes:

I don't doubt for a second Lewis is being honest.

Of course you don't. :rolleyes:

And I see it was Right Wing hack Andrew Breitbart offering the $10,000.

Why should that make a difference? In fact, if Lewis was being honest, then taking Breitbart's money would seem like something he would have enjoyed doing … something that would not only have discredited the Tea Party but Breitbart. And by the way, Breitbart eventually offered to give the United Negro College Fund $100,000 if Lewis would take a lie detector test and pass it. That's serious money. so why would Lewis turn down such a wonderful opportunity for his people … unless he was worried he wouldn't pass the test? :D

I wouldn't give that clown the time of day either.

Not even if he offered to give your favorite charity $100,000 if you'd only take a lie detector test regarding a claim you made and pass it? Gee, it seems to me that if you weren't lying, that would be easy money. :D


I have yet to hear Bond or Lewis say something comparable to Wrights lauding "the chickens coming home to roust" on 9/11 or the like.

So you don't think Bond saying Republicans' "idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side. They draw their most rabid support from the Taliban Wing of American politics, and now they want to re-write bigotry back into the American Constitution" is outrageous and inflammatory? :rolleyes:

So you don't think Bond calling Republicans everything from "neo-fascists" and "the white people's party" to "a crazed swarm of right wing locusts" is outrageous and inflammatory? :rolleyes:

So you don't think Bond discussing Town Halls and Tea Parties by saying "our politics have been poisoned by armed and paranoid self-described ‘patriots’ drawn from the Taliban wing a true 'Fright Wing' of American Politics who were once called Birchers and now are called Birthers spreading lies and myths" is outrageous and inflammatory? :rolleyes:

Thanks for proving my point that Social Justice is not a word exclusively used by communist.

What makes you think Reverend Wright isn't a communist? He preaches Black Liberation Theology which has it's roots in communist ideology. All it is Marxism dressed up to look like Christianity. In fact, here's a video of Wright on September 17, 2009 praising "no-nonsense Marxism": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDkJcCbOFL8&feature=player_embedded#! .

Quote:
But Mike Klonsky, who has been closely tied to Obama for years, was/is a communist. And so was/is Bill Ayers. So was Van Jones. Indeed, it is surprising how many of those surrounding Obama were/are communists spouting the message of "social justice".

Irrelevant.

No, that is NOT irrelevant … as many people are beginning to discover.

[Juniversal]

I see you are now desperately clinging to any rationale you can think of to ignore the obvious. Oh well. :DYes, that's exactly what I was doing. ;)


But not necessarily in 1964. Again, you need to compare the Japanese-American situation following WW2 with what blacks faced in 1964. And I don't think it was all that different. And then ask yourself why one group prospered, and the other still hasn't.Besides that fact that these groups are FAR from appropriate analouges for each other? You're comparing apples and oranges.

One group is decidely segregated to the west coast (and certainly almost ALL japanese in the WW2 era were in a single state, California), has a much smaller population size and history is limited in comparison to blacks. While the other has a much larger population size, is distributed across the United States in mostly urban areas and has a much longer history within the U.S.

As I've noted, you can print lots of money …. mountains of it … and hand it out, but you don't really end poverty that way. All you do is convert a material poverty into dependence … a poverty of the soul. One that breeds feelings of undeserved entitlement and resentment. And all you do it take money from producers and give it to non-producers. And in the end that will only create more poverty than otherwise would have occurred.lol poverty of the soul. Cute term. :D But I fail to see how welfare creates resenment. Was the movement that created the Black Panther Party a product of welfare? Or was it a product of America's extremely poor treament of blacks? Was the resenment many felt towards the "establishment" during the pre and post civil rights movement era a result of welfare or Bull Conner, KKK styled opposition to black intergration into society? I don't see the connection between welfare and resenment. Create entitlement? How so?


No. Look at what the poverty rate did during the economic boom that followed 9/11 and the 2000 recession: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif . It went up.Yea that's exactly what I implied. The poverty rate went up post 9/11 as the reccession set in.


Why should that make a difference? In fact, if Lewis was being honest, then taking Breitbart's money would seem like something he would have enjoyed doing … something that would not only have discredited the Tea Party but Breitbart. And by the way, Breitbart eventually offered to give the United Negro College Fund $100,000 if Lewis would take a lie detector test and pass it. That's serious money. so why would Lewis turn down such a wonderful opportunity for his people … unless he was worried he wouldn't pass the test? :DOddly enough I couldn't find any articals that actually say that Lewis "turned down" the offer. Only articals parroting Brietbarts original "offer". Hmm...


Not even if he offered to give your favorite charity $100,000 if you'd only take a lie detector test regarding a claim you made and pass it? Gee, it seems to me that if you weren't lying, that would be easy money. :DPut my integrity on the line on the basis of a potentially fickle lie detector test? Nope. And even worse, at the command of Right Wing hack Andrew Brietbart? Definitely not.


So you don't think Bond saying Republicans' "idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side. They draw their most rabid support from the Taliban Wing of American politics, and now they want to re-write bigotry back into the American Constitution" is outrageous and inflammatory? :rolleyes:

So you don't think Bond calling Republicans everything from "neo-fascists" and "the white people's party" to "a crazed swarm of right wing locusts" is outrageous and inflammatory? :rolleyes:

So you don't think Bond discussing Town Halls and Tea Parties by saying "our politics have been poisoned by armed and paranoid self-described ‘patriots’ drawn from the Taliban wing a true 'Fright Wing' of American Politics who were once called Birchers and now are called Birthers spreading lies and myths" is outrageous and inflammatory? :rolleyes:Of course it's inflammatory to Republicans. But I wouldn't say he's too far off in his assesment considering the behavior of many Repubs. ;)


What makes you think Reverend Wright isn't a communist? He preaches Black Liberation Theology which has it's roots in communist ideology. All it is Marxism dressed up to look like Christianity. In fact, here's a video of Wright on September 17, 2009 praising "no-nonsense Marxism": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDkJcCbOFL8&feature=player_embedded#! .Be careful. You might pull a muscle reaching like that. Your game of "six degrees of communism" is a humorously weak attempt to link communism to the word "social justice". But keep it up. You're desperation is showing. ;)


No, that is NOT irrelevant … as many people are beginning to discover.Yes, it was completely irrelevant to my statement.

[BeAChooser]

One group is decidely segregated to the west coast (and certainly almost ALL japanese in the WW2 era were in a single state, California), has a much smaller population size and history is limited in comparison to blacks. While the other has a much larger population size, is distributed across the United States in mostly urban areas and has a much longer history within the U.S.

And those differences mean what? It would seem to me they'd would only have made it harder for the Japanese, compared to blacks. By 1964, many Americans were having daily contact with blacks, and about half those blacks were middle class. Contact with ordinary people, with ordinary problems and with their kids. And hard working blacks since more and more Americans were already working side by side with blacks. Which is one reason the Civil Rights Acts passed … because American were, by and large, ready for it. The mistake came in making blacks into dependents of the State. In killing their growing middle class values with *kindness*. Whereas, right after WW2, the only contact most Americans had with Japanese was war-time propaganda, and seeing/hearing all the bad things they'd done to American soldiers and other people during the war. To many Americans they were inhuman. Seems to me that would have made it even harder to have accomplished what they did over the next two decades. Seems to me blacks had a head start on that and squandered it somehow.

lol poverty of the soul. Cute term.

What else can you call it when so many blacks won't even face the problems they've created in their own community, but insist on blaming others for all their ills? After 45 years and trillions and trillions of dollars?

But I fail to see how welfare creates resenment.

Because it's not real wealth. It's only a mask hiding the lack of a job, the lack of education, the lack of good values, the lack of self worth. You haven't learned anything from history if you haven't learned that handing people money doesn't buy respect. It's why foreign aid programs have by and large been dismal failures. They make people dependent and they resent that dependency.

Was the movement that created the Black Panther Party a product of welfare? Or was it a product of America's extremely poor treament of blacks? Was the resenment many felt towards the "establishment" during the pre and post civil rights movement era a result of welfare or Bull Conner, KKK styled opposition to black intergration into society?

Isn't it curious that the Black Panther Party was only founded in 1966, AFTER the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and WOP had begun? If the resentment was there before that time, why wasn't that group established before that? What the rhetoric from democrats in the WOP did was give the leaders of the Black Panther the feeling they could demand … that they were entitled to … many things. They came out with a 10 Point Program demanding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party ):

- full controll over all institutions in black communities,

- guaranteed employment or guaranteed income for all blacks (and they stated that "if the American businessmen will not give full employment, then the technology and means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community" >>> i.e. communism),

- reparations,

- free housing,

- free education (and it had to be an education that "exposes the true nature of this decadent" society),

- free health care for all blacks

- the right to form armed militias to defend themselves from their white oppressors and their "fascist police forces"

- release of all blacks held in federal, state, county, city and military prisons

- "LAND, BREAD, HOUSING, EDUCATION, CLOTHING, JUSTICE, PEACE AND PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CONTROL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY."

Seriously, Juniversal, what prevented them from issuing those 10 points before the WOP began? Except the sense of entitlement it gave them?

Create entitlement? How so?

You haven't been listening. Not to me, not to anyone who has spoken for decades regarding the source of "entitlement".


The poverty rate went up post 9/11 as the reccession set in.

Look at the graph. The poverty rate started going up BEFORE the recession began. But more important, the recession ended in 2001. Are you claiming that the poverty rate going up in 2002, 2003 and 2004 was because of the recession? :rolleyes:

Oddly enough I couldn't find any articals that actually say that Lewis "turned down" the offer. Only articals parroting Brietbarts original "offer". Hmm…

Oh … so you are going to claim that Lewis accepted the offer and took the test? Where's your proof of that? :D

Put my integrity on the line on the basis of a potentially fickle lie detector test? Nope. And even worse, at the command of Right Wing hack Andrew Brietbart? Definitely not.

http://www.truthorlie.com/accurate.html "According to the American Polygraph Association over 250 studies have been conducted on the accuracy of polygraph testing during the past 25 years. Recent research reveals that the accuracy of the new computerized polygraph stytem is close to 100%." And you don't really think Breitbart would be conducting the test, do you? :rolleyes:

But I wouldn't say he's too far off in his assesment considering the behavior of many Repubs.

Thanks for showing everyone here at JREF how reasonable a poster you are. :D

You're desperation is showing.

No, your desperation is showing. I just proved with a video tape that Reverend Wright praised communism.

Yes, it was completely irrelevant to my statement.

But it is relevant to what the folks who've surrounded Obama mean by "social justice". :D

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

No, it is not. When will liberals realize that handing someone money does not take them out of poverty. ...[snip]... No. You've just delayed facing it a few years until the entire system collapses … all because you've taken money from producers and given it to non-producers. It is a ticking time bomb, as we are now discovering.

As I've noted before, you love to make counter-attacks against fictional arguments. Consider this little red herring thoroughly ignored.

I'm sure you'd have been content to let readers interpret that statement more broadly … had I said nothing.

No I think the majority of readers not out to argue via strawmen and red herrings knew exactly what I was saying. It was a counter-argument against your own stated belief, which is that welfare slows the decline of poverty and even reverses itself and drives poverty rates up. Were this true, poverty rates would not have continued to go down in spite of large welfare programs.

Actually what you tried to do was imply that folks like me are in favor of zero welfare. And you'd have been content to leave that impression in reader's minds … had I said nothing.

When an individual blames the welfare system for either creating poverty or a system of dependence people tend to interpret that as being anti-welfare. I'm highly skeptical of the idea that you're for welfare in any form, so you'll forgive me if I roll my eyes at the thought of you being in favor of welfare. Well, maybe I should take that back, quite a few modern conservatives are in favor of corporate welfare and socialism for the wealthy. Or hell, just today you decided it’d be a good idea to equate welfare with some sort of spiritual taint, you really can’t argue that you’re in favor of welfare at this point. It’s just straining credulity.

But what we were discussing at that precise moment was a comparison between that happened to Japanese-Americans following WW2 and what happened to blacks after the WOP began in 1964. Why did one group become prosperous and the other not? You tried to suddenly change the subject when it became apparent what the reasons might be.

I never changed the subject BAC; follow our discussion on the subject again. It began with me taking exception to the idea that the Japanese-Americans had it worse than blacks (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6175864#post6175864) and pointing out that your comparison is a non-sequitor, the history of blacks and Japanese-Americans in this country are not equal so it is impossible to derive any meaning from the rise of one to the other. You responded by claiming that Japanese-Americans did have it as bad and claimed they still faced notable discrimination today (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6176852#post6176852). Note that during this entire time you never once provided any data on the status of blacks in the US following World War II and gleefully ignored the continued institutional racism against blacks in favor of pointing out, repeatedly, how bad Japanese-Americans had it. I responded by pointing out that Japanese-Americans had already begun to receive redress for atrocities against them, a movement of acceptance for Japanese-Americans had already began (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6176970#post6176970) and you ignored this in favor of going on a rant about how bad Japanese-Americans had it during World War II (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6179865#post6179865)...again. All the while failing to address any point that I had actually raised in the previous comment. It wasn't until this post here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6182970#post6182970) that I finally called your argument regarding welfare into question. And the WoP was not mentioned until your next post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6188644#post6188644). We were not discussing the effects of the WoP until you brought it up. 1964 was initially brought up because that is the year the Civil Rights Act was signed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964).

Guess you missed the mentions of the WOP in posts #376, #390 and 401.

Post #376 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6162657&postcount=376) does not mention the WoP. None of these were addressed to me, especially not Post #390 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6165586&postcount=390) and #401 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6172337&postcount=401). Furthermore, I haven't even read them. Hell, I still haven't read them. So now you expect me to address arguments not even addressed to me simply because they're in the same thread?

Really? Thanks for demonstrating what communist admirers think.

Hmm, call me crazy but in the big book of "Honesty and Integrity" I'm pretty sure Rule #1 was "don't deliberately quote someone out of context in order to make a strawman against them."

But it wasn't just welfare during the period you are claiming it reduced poverty rates.

No, I'm claiming that welfare in general helps reduce poverty rates. And even if it didn't, that it simply is the right thing to do and always preferable to allowing people to starve to death in the streets. You, on the other hand, are trying to ascribe meaning that isn't there and justifying it by appealing to these mysterious "readers" who would agree with your interpretation. It's not my fault if you and these hypothetical "readers" prefer to argue whilst ignoring context.

The anti-poverty (i.e., wealth redistribution) aspects of SS were tiny compared to LBJ's WOP and what followed in terms of the amount of money thrown at poverty. In 1965, after the WOP had begun, about 3% of GDP was being spent on various types of assistance (http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/socialpolicy/Documents/prp01/images/prp_no_01_new-15.gif ). Within a decade that percentage had doubled. By the 1990s it was triple that percentage of GDP. And the amounts before 1964 were even smaller. Much smaller, else it wouldn't have been called a War On Poverty. In fact, just look at how SS expenditures grew over the years: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/wp/wp-hw/vol1/images/f1-1-3.gif . They were miniscule before 1964.

Any welfare system that seeks to give money to the poor would be wealth redistribution, the fact that you vilify anything even casually Marxist is another strike against your supposed desire for some form of welfare. Nor do I have any idea what this has to do with my above statement. Are you attempting to claim SS is not welfare? If you are, you’re going to have to do better than “well, not all of it was welfare”.

No, most welfare programs do not do that. The unfunded liabilities for the Social Security system currently stand at more than $17 trillion (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662 ). And they only headed towards such astronomical heights after 1964 and the liberal thinking that made SS mostly welfare took control. And Medicare's unfunded liabilities are even larger thanks to that same liberal thinking.

I consider it spectacularly dishonest on the part of the NCPA to lump Medicare/Medicaid liabilities in with SS in order to boost the number; this was done to incite panic, pure and simple. Regardless of any similarities, should they exist at all, the response to dealing with either is very different. The CBO suggests that we increase payroll taxes by about 0.6% of GDP (or two percentage points over the next twenty years (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/CBO_-_Effect_of_Policy_options_on_Social_Security.png)) in order to deal with the issue. However, we can expect politicians to be politicians and do only the bare minimum to kick the funding issue down the road by about thirty-forty years. I'd hardly consider raising taxes by 0.6% of the GDP to be a "crisis" however. And even then we still have the option to either raise taxes or cut benefits when the fund does run out. Again, we can expect politicians to do the bare minimum to push the funding issue down the road a few decades.

As for Medicare/Medicaid, while this is hardly the place for discussing the issue, the general response from the left and right is to reform our health care system and reduce the need for such egregious spending to begin with. Then again, in other threads you’ve practically stated that health care reform isn’t a big issue. That we can afford to sit back and go through a myriad of tiny changes, I guess this is only true so long as we’re talking about the free market. When gubmint socialism is involved we need change right now! :rolleyes:

It obviously depends on how much they pay into the system, relative to what they will be taking out. Don't you agree?

Not really, as any alternate pay system will result in the poor getting screwed. Progressive taxes would see them taking the least amount of money from welfare programs, under this proposal. And, assuming you're a proponent of flat tax rates, everyone would get the same amount of welfare. Or, hilariously, you could get welfare based on how much money you put into the system...resulting in the people who need welfare least receiving the most welfare benefits.

Fine. But you did say that the drop was most drastic after SS began, implying that it's SS that is mostly responsible for that, aren't you?

No, I simply stated that poverty levels dropped most drastically during major expansions of our welfare program. Any additional meaning to that statement you added on your own.

Otherwise, I fail to see why you'd even bother to mention SS.

I mentioned it because you were blaming welfare for black poverty. You then attempted to focus welfare solely on the WoP and I brought up SS in order to demonstrate that welfare existed before the WoP.

All it has done has hide it and delay the impact on our society. And perhaps make it worse in the end.

A statement you're comfortable making sans evidence I see.

Data is data. It's the interpretation that makes something Keynesian or not.

Obviously, but I honestly can’t think of one valid reason why you’d post it, the paper is blatantly disagreeing with you.

Well obviously I think that's nonsense … which is why I didn't quote it.

I don't know why you quoted it at all actually. Nothing in the paper seems to agree with you.

Indeed you do. And it only took a little war (and a few tens of million dead) for socialists to achieve that glorious post war expansion. :rolleyes:

Hey, you were the one who initially brought up WWII as stimulating the economy (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6192785&postcount=441). The only thing I'm pointing out is that it is confirmation that government spending can stimulate an economy in recession/depression. Though the rest of your statement is hilarious, truly. It really outlines your inability to tell leftist philosophies apart, going back to the idea you seem to have stuck in your head that we’re a hivemind of sorts. It’s almost like some sort of political racism, really. But if it makes you feel better, I can assure you that Marxists don’t think too highly of Keynesian economic theories. Especially when you look at New Keynesian economics, which are so heavily tied into neoclassical microeconomic theories and takes a cue or two from monetarism.

Looking into this, I see I may have been wrong about that figure. I don't know why I thought those two sources supported that claim. Sorry.

...[snip]...

Just when I started to think you were getting my argument you pull this one out. *sigh* No BAC, I am not nor have I ever claimed that SS was responsible for the majority of the drop in poverty rates. We can discuss this issue better when you finally understand this.

Here is something else to consider:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G2-3401803918.html

That seems to suggest we've been fed a lot of lies about the need for SS in the first place.

And consider what this source says:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_1/17_1_1.pdf

Also this:

Now this is more interesting, but I'd still say it misses the point. What SS did was encourage older individuals to retire, thus opening up jobs for the younger generation. Look at this way; hiring younger individuals allows companies to spend less money on employees (as a general rule of thumb; seniority comes with better pay) thus increasing profits and aiding in growth. SS is an area in which government intervention is simply more efficient than the market. Those of you reading this alongside proponents of laizzes-faire capitalism may want to take a step back before their minds get blown.

I'm not dealing with strawmen. I simply asked you a very simple question, KF, about something that YOU claimed. You wrote in post #436 that "Following the passing of the EOA in 1964 the poverty rate in the country dropped by two percent and then another two percent after the passing of SSA of 1965. By 1966 the poverty rate was 15.7%, down from 19% in 1964." You were clearly implying that the EOA and SSA were the cause of that decrease in poverty. So I'll ask you again. How do you explain a nearly 4% drop in poverty when the amount of welfare that resulted from the EOA and SSA was tiny in those first two years (because it took time for a welfare pipeline to be established) as proven by the figure I supplied earlier? Why were the subsequent decreases in poverty so small in comparison, in the years after that when welfare spending was so much, much greater? Those facts seems counterintuitive to what you are claiming about welfare spending reducing poverty. No strawman, just a simply question. Which you seem desperate to ignore.

I pointed that out in the next paragraph. Welfare spending has increased but people are receiving fewer benefits. It makes your entire argument a non-sequitor and it would be intellectually dishonest to claim that welfare in general can’t help to lower poverty while the impoverished are receiving fewer benefits then they were during the 1960’s and using that fact to justify your view.

Whether that's true or not

Slow down a minute here, it is true. If you can prove that it’s not be my guest.

that still doesn't explain why in the timeframe from 1969 to 1978, the poverty rate dropped less than it did from 1964 to 1968 (or for that matter from 1959 to 1963) … even though welfare spending had increased 5 fold in total (as indicated by my source) and the size of welfare benefits to given individuals had increased 30% (as indicated by your source)?

Definitions of recession on the web (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+recession&aq=f&aqi=l1g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=CqB57VmJeTKy-CYfAzQTfk9GqCgAAAKoEBU_Qm3fH&pbx=1). Stagflation could also be a pretty big factor as well. Also, look at the graph I provided to you one more time (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif). Your dates are a tad bit off. The most obvious answer is that, starting in the 70's, the economy simply didn't prosper as much. That's not exactly counter-intuitive to my argument though. I've stated in the past that welfare is simply incapable of lowering poverty on its own, but it can certainly contribute alongside economic prosperity.

And then even in the years after that, while the amount of benefits per individual receiving welfare MAY have dropped by 40%, the total amount of welfare spent skyrocketed by at least a factor of 10 at a time when the poverty rates started going back up. Again, that's counterintuitive to the notion that welfare spending reduces poverty.

The spending still has to be properly allocated. Obviously no one thinks that giving out welfare benefits to Bill Gates is going to reduce poverty.

LOL! No, you're just desperately moving goalposts in the hope that noone will notice your lies.

You caught me here. I am desperately hoping that noone will not catch my lies. He could very well, in payback, decide to give me the slip and head straight on into evening if he finds out.

You stated that your figure showed that "massive increases in poverty were seen follow the deep cuts that both Reagan and Clinton managed to secure." You never even mentioned recessions in your comment. And what I showed is that you were wrong, using your own graph. What I showed is that half the "massive increases" in poverty occurred BEFORE Reagan even took office and that within 2 years of taking office his policies had caused the poverty rate to start dropping, which it did for the next 6 consecutive years. And I also showed that your graph shows poverty was increasing BEFORE Clinton took office and started dropping almost immediately AFTER he was in office. The opposite of what you claimed. I think everyone can see that your current spinning is only compounding a lie.

Well I suppose this is what I get for assuming that you knew how to read a graph. What I stated was that they presided over increases in the poverty rate. Clearly I was wrong about Clinton and I have no idea how I came to that conclusion. But Reagan did indeed preside over an increase in poverty rates. When Reagan left office his poverty rates were not below pre-recession levels from the late 70’s, meaning from the time the recession began in the late 70’s to the time Reagan left office the poverty rate increased. What I’m criticizing Reagan for is failing to bring poverty down to pre-recession levels, and I criticize him for a whole host of other things he and supply-siders promised and failed to deliver. And no, I don’t really feel the need to give him credit for bringing poverty rates below what they were during a recession his administration started, purposefully.

LOL! Your figure shows that the poverty rate was climbing well before the 1979 recession began, and continued to climb between the 1979 and the 1981-82 recession. Explain that?

Stagflation

To me, that suggests the recession probably had less to do with that increase in poverty than you want people to believe.

"You people"? Taking a quick look around my computer I can see I'm the only one here. Who are these hypothetical "people"? For that matter, it'll take a mighty set of brazen balls to conclude that recession has little-to-no effect on poverty rates.

And your graph shows that when the 1982 recession ended, with Reagan now in office, the poverty rate immediately started to drop. And contrary to what you claimed, it dropped to below the level it was before the 1981-82 recession began.

Show me where I claimed it never dropped below the early 80’s recession. What I noted is that it failed to recover from the '79 recession as well. I won't fault Reagan for that one too much, but I do find the idea that his tax cuts were some magic fix to be absurd. Especially if you weigh the short-term economic gains made by cutting taxes to the long-term effect of greater deficits. I simply find the idea that Reagan’s policies were responsible for enormous economic gains that didn’t actually occur until Clinton took office to be ridiculous.

Likewise, in 1990 the poverty rate was climbing well before the recession and continued to climb long after the recession … until Clinton came into office and Republicans forced him to cut welfare and taxes. Then again the poverty rate fell and fell until it was below what it was at the start of the 1990 recession.

I already pointed out that the earliest tax cuts they forced him to enact were in 1997. Clearly tax cuts are magic, since you're claiming they were responsible for growth that occurred before they were even implemented. :rolleyes: But I've never claimed tax cuts aren't good for the economy, I just find the amount of power you attribute to them ridiculous.

That it didn't drop below 1979 levels during Reagan's term just proves it is much harder to undo the damage done by socialists to economies than to damage them in the first place.

Or it proves that you have one hell of a lot of faith in the power of the tax cut. Even in the face of tripling national debt during non-recession/non-war times tax cuts are capable of stimulating a massive amount of growth apparently. And even if his taxes did increase the GDP, his deficit spending means that someday those debts he created are going to have to be paid off. Meaning we’ll have to go through a time later in our nations history of slowed economic growth to pay it off.

For that matter, Reagan is a socialist now? Or is it just Paul Volcker who is the socialist? You do know that the 1981-82 recession was intentional and created by the Fed to break the price/wage spiral, right? :rolleyes:

In fact, it may take generations to undo the damage done by Obama and the current crop of democrat socialist/communists. If we even can at this point.

Nice scare mongering, I especially loved the de-facto cry of "but it might be impossible to pay off this debt now!" despite the US having much higher debts in the past. :rolleyes:

That doesn't seem to match what your chart shows. It shows that the poverty rate went down during Reagan's term. Yet you are now claiming that it "exploded" during his term? :rolleyes: Looks to me like liars always have trouble keeping the lies straight. But socialist and communist ones don't seem to care. They've gotten good over the years at telling obvious lies with a straight face.

You are aware that my chart refers to poverty rates as a nation and doesn't highlight inner city poverty rates, right? So that would make this entire paragraph completely false, right?

That's the problem with those who admire communists and those who are communists. They tend to overlook the impact of economic growth in the equation. And how lowering taxes stimulate that growth.

I don't think you realize how crazy you sound when you say this. :newlol

LOL! You can't honestly think that, given all the lies you've spouted in this discussion so far, folks are going to believe welfare spending didn't triple, just because you claim it? That's pathetic, KF. You are more than welcome to try and prove this chart is inaccurate:

http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/12C8BF372772E8472BD86BF1DEA5EF8B.gif

But I know you can't do it.

Yet another strawman, and they certainly are piling up. I never claimed welfare spending didn't triple, just that welfare benefits are going down. But nice try, maybe I'll latch onto this red herring someday.

Sorry, but that graph does NOT show the black poverty rate "has been steadily decreasing". In fact, it's been going back up the last decade.

Now who is switching goalposts? I suppose those gains the black community made economically for the past 60+ years are worthless because poverty went up in the last decade. :rolleyes:

I already provided that information to you in post #435. First, I quoted http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm stating that in 1959 the "non-white" poverty rate was 58.2% and in 1964 it was 49.8%. In the 5 years leading up to the start of the WOP, the non-white poverty rate dropped 8.4%. What caused it to do that, KF?

I also quoted http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864 saying that the "poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960." That's a 40% drop in the 20 years before the WOP. Again, what caused that to happen, KF?

Evasion so noted. Maybe next time you can explain how black poverty hasn't been steadily decreasing. You know, what I originally objected to? :rolleyes:

Better than any conjecture you might offer to explain that. And yes, I have offered a number of sources that back up that assertion. But I guess you just ignored them as well. Guess there is none so blind as a communist admirer.

I can't seem to find them, would you mind pointing them out again?

LOL! Carter started his term with a poverty rate of about 11.5%. He ended it with a poverty rate of about 14%. What an accomplishment. :rolleyes: Also, don't forget to mention all the other wonderful things Carter left us. Like double digit inflation. You, of course, are much to young to remember what that was like … but who knows, thanks to Obama (the new Carter) maybe you will get a taste of that too.

Right you are, I had my dates mixed up and thought Carter left office in '79. A quick check and I saw I was wrong.

Volcker's achievement was implimenting monetarism, not Keynesian economics: http://spectator.org/archives/2008/10/29/its-best-keynes-remain-forgott . Even wikipedia covers this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism

So you toss an unsourced op-ed at me as evidence? :rolleyes: He may have been a monetarist but the method for dealing with high inflation was strictly Keynesian. The Keynesian view on dealing with high inflation is to raise interest rates thereby creating high unemployment to break the price/wage spiral, to put it simply. This is precisely what Paul Volcker did. If you don't believe me check out the 1981-82 recession and read up on Keynesian views on contractionary monetary policy.

But total spending wasn't dropping. It was going up because more and more people were joining the welfare roles. It jumped a lot after Reagan left office: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/03/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/CDA1001_chart4/CDA1001_chart4.ashx?w=750&h=553&as=1 .

So what?

But you are. Your figure shows that poverty rates started down towards the end of 1992 (and the rate of increase was slowing years before that). What happened in about that time? Well the graph (linked above) shows that both Carter and Clinton massively increased welfare spending. It increased over 100% between 1989 and 1996. Like I said, print enough money, hand it out, and you can make the poverty rate go to zero. But the people are still poor … still unemployed … still going nowhere.

You’re still ignoring that people received less benefits. I don’t know how many times I have to explain this before you understand the fallacy you’re making. It doesn’t matter if we increase welfare spending by four or five trillion dollars if people receive fewer benefits as a result. The fact that we tripled welfare spending simply doesn’t matter.

And note in my graph that from 1997 to 2000, welfare spending stabilized even though poverty rates continued to drop (in fact, they even dropped faster after 1997 according to the graph you posted earlier). Now how do you explain that? Well the reason is that the economy began to really take off after the tax cuts in 1997. Here:

Regardless of how many times I point out that welfare spending cannot cut poverty on its own you will continue to argue the point as if I have. At this point in time you’re simply arguing with a strawman that you’ve decided to name KF. :rolleyes:

In short, had Clinton not increased taxes, history shows that the growth in GDP would likely have been much higher than it was (it grew 7-8% after the 1981/82 recession ended, for instance). And poverty rates would probably have dropped more than they did.

Yes and no, while it did provide us with economic growth in the long run it would have been better if the US just slugged out a decade of slower growth in order to pay off the debt incurred by Reagan and Bush.

GARBAGE.

*link spam*

Sorry, KF, but the data on recessions proves that Keynes was just plain wrong. In case after case, doing just the opposite of what Keynes advocated led to short recessions and shorter depressions. And in the case of the Great Depression, I showed that doing what Keynes suggested prolonged it. So if you really want us to believe Keynes had it right, provide historical examples where massive government spending successfully shortened recessions or depressions ... rather than lengthen them ... and where massive government spending reduced unemployment. I won't hold my breath. You certainly won't do it with the current Obama stimulus.

Data? You think you provided data above? No BAC, that’s not what you did. You quoted four unsourced op-eds at me and acted as if they should be treated the same as a peer-reviewed paper in a respectable journal of economics. You haven’t proven anything, you didn’t show that “doing just the opposite of what Keynes advocated led to short recessions and shorter depressions”. You didn’t even provide any data on either. Now you expect me to prove your fictitious arguments wrong? Come back when you get something worth commenting on. :rolleyes:

And by the way, were Keynes alive today, I doubt he'd be supporting Obama's spending programs, precisely because they are going to be inflationary … far above the amount Keynes said was tolerable.

I’ve noticed dead men are quick to agree with anything people say they’d agree with. For instance, I’m sure if Thomas Jefferson were alive today he’d agree that you should put on a dress and do an Irish jig in the middle of a crowded New York sidewalk.

No, those are facts that everyone but communist admirers seem to know.

Facts can, typically, be proven.

Books, plays, whatever. And I only assumed you were an English major because you seem so hung up on correct spelling and grammar. And you claim you are not liberal arts educated? Call me a skeptic.

Understandable skepticism. I do seem far more knowledgeable in areas typically concerned with liberal arts; spelling/grammar, reading comprehension, logic, etc. etc. And likewise I’m now skeptical to the idea that you’ve ever even seen the inside of a college.

So you think there's no friction between African immigrants and native-American blacks?

I didn’t say that, now did I? I actually called into question your willingness to quote from non-scientific, non-credible sources and demand they be treated as evidence.

I think a little more independent thought is needed in a group where 90 plus percent vote democrat in elections.

Oh please, you and I both know that the issue has nothing to do with “independent thought”. You’re pissed because that 90% is voting for Democrats, you’d be fine if it was 90% voting Republican. And I certainly notice that you aren’t going to be throwing a fit over the voting habits of white, middle-ages, evangelical males. :rolleyes:

Glad to see you are bored by the plight of blacks as outlined by LBJ.

My feelings would be hurt if I thought you gave a damn about the plight of blacks as outlines by LBJ.

No, I did not. Stop lying.

This is typically the part where you outline how I lied.

LOL! Ever notice how clueless communist admirers are, folks?

Who are you talking to? I suppose you also suffer from delusions of grandeur, assuming that crowds of people are hanging off your every word are we?

No, that clearly was not my point. Maybe *clueless* doesn't fit. Maybe you just like to engage in dishonest debate.

Then maybe you’d like to clarify what your point was rather than just assuming that I’m being dishonest? :rolleyes:

No, you certainly aren't that. Not if you admire communists.

Well if your behavior is the marker of what makes a free market capitalist, I’ll take this as a compliment.

Yep. That's it. You enjoy dishonest debate. Could you be a lawyer?

Twice now you’re given the opportunity to clarify and you don’t. :rolleyes:

Gee, KF, rather than toss out red herrings, can't you find even one valid explanation why the black community wasn't able to do what Japanese Americans did in the two decades after WW2? Can't you find even one valid explanation for why trillions and trillions of welfare dollars failed to impact black poverty? Why a segment of society that was given trillions and trillions of dollars had a poverty rate 600% percent higher than everyone else? It's almost like they weren't trying.

First, it’s not a red herring. Second, you’ve had the reasons explained to you numerous times but you’re too much of a partisan to accept any of them.

LOL! You are clearly on the run here, KF. And everyone can see it.

Can everyone? Maybe we should poll everyone and see what everyone thinks.

I think everyone can see there's no sense in continuing this, KF. You are on the run now. Not just playing clueless, but dumb … acting like that has never been discussed. But that's what democrats/socialists/communists and even communist admirers do when confronted with facts and history.

There comes everyone into this debate again. Must be delusions of grandeur. Tell me, are you familiar with the phrase “small name, big ego”?

[Juniversal]

And those differences mean what? It would seem to me they'd would only have made it harder for the Japanese, compared to blacks. By 1964, many Americans were having daily contact with blacks, and about half those blacks were middle class. Contact with ordinary people, with ordinary problems and with their kids. And hard working blacks since more and more Americans were already working side by side with blacks. Which is one reason the Civil Rights Acts passed … because American were, by and large, ready for it. The mistake came in making blacks into dependents of the State. In killing their growing middle class values with *kindness*. Whereas, right after WW2, the only contact most Americans had with Japanese was war-time propaganda, and seeing/hearing all the bad things they'd done to American soldiers and other people during the war. To many Americans they were inhuman. Seems to me that would have made it even harder to have accomplished what they did over the next two decades. Seems to me blacks had a head start on that and squandered it somehow.You seriously don't see what "those differences" mean? Those differences mean it's an unfit comparison.You can't see the signifigance of one group being essentially represented in a single state as opposed to a group represented fairly well throughout the entire country?? Or the vastly different population sizes and how they can effect the group dynamics?


Also you seem to have dilluted yourself into believing that blacks were fully intergrated into society, viewed positively and had it made the minute the civil rights act passed.


What else can you call it when so many blacks won't even face the problems they've created in their own community, but insist on blaming others for all their ills? After 45 years and trillions and trillions of dollars?What is it called when someone makes brash, broad sweeping generalizations on the basis of stereotypes?? :confused:


Because it's not real wealth. It's only a mask hiding the lack of a job, the lack of education, the lack of good values, the lack of self worth. You haven't learned anything from history if you haven't learned that handing people money doesn't buy respect. It's why foreign aid programs have by and large been dismal failures. They make people dependent and they resent that dependency.Oh my. More stereotypes. :boggled:

So let me see. Those on welfare are uneducated, lack good values and lack self-worth? Got you. :jaw-dropp You object to what Bond says about Republicans but you spout this nonesense??

Isn't it curious that the Black Panther Party was only founded in 1966, AFTER the passage of the Civil Rights Acts and WOP had begun? If the resentment was there before that time, why wasn't that group established before that? What the rhetoric from democrats in the WOP did was give the leaders of the Black Panther the feeling they could demand … that they were entitled to … many things. They came out with a 10 Point Program demanding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party ):

- full controll over all institutions in black communities,

- guaranteed employment or guaranteed income for all blacks (and they stated that "if the American businessmen will not give full employment, then the technology and means of production should be taken from the businessmen and placed in the community" >>> i.e. communism),

- reparations,

- free housing,

- free education (and it had to be an education that "exposes the true nature of this decadent" society),

- free health care for all blacks

- the right to form armed militias to defend themselves from their white oppressors and their "fascist police forces"

- release of all blacks held in federal, state, county, city and military prisons

- "LAND, BREAD, HOUSING, EDUCATION, CLOTHING, JUSTICE, PEACE AND PEOPLE'S COMMUNITY CONTROL OF MODERN TECHNOLOGY."lol so you do believe the Black Panther Party was a product of Welfare? *face...palm* You're commiting another causation-correlation fallacy my friend. Other organization associated with black millitancy were created prior to 1964. The Nation of Islam was created in 1930 with many of the same tenets and ideology associated with the Black milliatantcy or the like.


About co-founder Bobby Seale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Seale):

In 1962, at the age of 25, Seale began attending Oakland City College, located on Grove Street, near the Berkeley city limits, where he would join the Afro-American Association (AAA) and as a result meet Huey Newton, later his co-founder of the Black Panther Party. Seale and co-member Newton became increasingly skeptical about the direction of the AAA, and in particular, the AAA's tendency to analyze rather than act on the problems facing black Americans.

Both Seale and Newton, heavily inspired by Malcolm X, a civil rights leader assassinated in 1965, and his teachings, joined together in October 1966 to create the Black Panther Party for Self Defense and adopt the slain activist's slogan “Freedom by any means necessary” as their own. Seale became the chairman of the Black Panther Party and underwent FBI surveillance as part of its COINTELPRO program.

Clearly active prior to 1966 and the "BIG BAD WOP" and the organization was (maybe not so coincidently) created in the wake of Malcom X's death.

Seriously, Juniversal, what prevented them from issuing those 10 points before the WOP began? Except the sense of entitlement it gave them?As you said the BPP was created in 1966. It would be pretty difficult to create the organizations 10 points prior to the creation of the organization. :p


Look at the graph. The poverty rate started going up BEFORE the recession began. But more important, the recession ended in 2001. Are you claiming that the poverty rate going up in 2002, 2003 and 2004 was because of the recession? :rolleyes:I'm saying the poverty rate went up as the economy declined.


Oh … so you are going to claim that Lewis accepted the offer and took the test? Where's your proof of that? :DNo. Not at all. Only that i've found no proof he was even aware of the offer or that he actually "refused" to take the test. ;)


http://www.truthorlie.com/accurate.html "According to the American Polygraph Association over 250 studies have been conducted on the accuracy of polygraph testing during the past 25 years. Recent research reveals that the accuracy of the new computerized polygraph stytem is close to 100%." And you don't really think Breitbart would be conducting the test, do you? :rolleyes:lol the American polygraph association. Not the most most subjective source eh?

I direct you to the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygraph) page:

Polygraphy has little credibility among scientists. Despite claims of 90-95% validity by polygraph advocates, and 95-100% by businesses providing polygraph services, critics maintain that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.

Thanks for showing everyone here at JREF how reasonable a poster you are. :DYou're welcome. ;)



No, your desperation is showing. I just proved with a video tape that Reverend Wright praised communism.So Marxism and Communism are synonyms now? :rolleyes:



But it is relevant to what the folks who've surrounded Obama mean by "social justice". :DIt was irrelevant to my statement.

[dc1971]

Performance art. There's really no other explanation. The Tea Party is being secretly run by Andy Kaufman.

...and Andy Kaufman is dead nonetheless!

[dc1971]

Nice quote mining out of context, but hey that's the liberal way.

For a wacky, fringe group of people the Tea Party sure gets enough attention here.

As do many other groups of people here! Tis the reason why this is a FORUM! So what's your point?

[dc1971]

I'm sick of it on both sides. It does nothing but ratchet up the rhetoric and drown out substantive discussions.

Such as?

[Juniversal]

So Marxism and Communism are synonyms now?Scratch the above...^ Marxism and communism ARE indeed sysnonyms.

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
When will liberals realize that handing someone money does not take them out of poverty. ...[snip]... No. You've just delayed facing it a few years until the entire system collapses … all because you've taken money from producers and given it to non-producers. It is a ticking time bomb, as we are now discovering.

Consider this little red herring thoroughly ignored.

LOL! For someone who claims such a grasp of English and logic, I'm puzzled why you would call that a "red herring"? I'm not trying to change the subject at all since what I stated is the very core of the issue under debate. :D

It was a counter-argument against your own stated belief, which is that welfare slows the decline of poverty and even reverses itself and drives poverty rates up. Were this true, poverty rates would not have continued to go down in spite of large welfare programs.

But you forget that there are other forces at work. In particular, one force that may be more powerful than the negative effects of welfare at certain times. Given that you admire communists, however, your forgetfulness is completely understandable. :D

When an individual blames the welfare system for either creating poverty or a system of dependence people tend to interpret that as being anti-welfare.

Except that I've made it clear on numerous threads that I'm not advocating zero welfare. That I have no objection to providing aid to those who really need it through no fault of their own. And I suspect you've been on some of these threads. It's uncanny how often in debating a leftist (and particularly a communist or communist admirer) that one finds that they want to begin each thread as if there is no posting history. Perhaps that has to do with their wishing to ignore history completely. Afterall, doing so makes it easier to deceive the next group of suckers. :D


I never changed the subject BAC

:rolleyes:

the history of blacks and Japanese-Americans in this country are not equal so it is impossible to derive any meaning from the rise of one to the other.

Were that true, you and Juniversal wouldn't be having so much difficulty challenging what I've said about that. :D

You responded by claiming that Japanese-Americans did have it as bad and claimed they still faced notable discrimination today.

I never stated that Japanese Americans face "notable" discrimination today. I said that some individuals still harbor hatred of the Japanese as a result of the war. And they do. I've even met one or two. In fact, here's a group of people who probably have members who feel exactly that way:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/28/unfinished_business


JUNE 28, 2010

Lester Tenney entered World War II as a strapping 21-year-old, weight 180 pounds. By the time he emerged from Japanese captivity in 1945, he was a shattered, emaciated cripple. His left arm and shoulder were partly paralyzed due to an accident in a coal mine where he'd been sent as a slave laborer. His overseers there -- civilian employees of the Mitsui Corp., not members of the Imperial Army -- had knocked out his teeth in repeated beatings with hammers and pickaxes.
Sixty-five years later, Tenney and his fellow ex-prisoners of war (POWs) -- the rapidly diminishing group of those who remain alive, that is -- are still awaiting the full fruits of victory. The Japanese companies that once abused Tenney and his fellow prisoners have never acknowledged responsibility for their crimes, let alone offered compensation or regrets of any kind.

… snip …

At least we can finally talk about a bit of progress. Last year the Japanese parliament, the Diet, quietly issued an apology that finally included references to the POWs -- one that amounts to official recognition of Japan's moral responsibility for the prisoners' wartime suffering. And in May of last year the Japanese ambassador to the United States, Ichiro Fujisaki, offered an apology of his own, echoing the 1995 government declaration, at a San Antonio gathering of some of the surviving American prisoners. Not all of the Americans were mollified, though Tenney says that the ambassador's sally "took a lot of courage," given the bitterness among some of the veterans.



Note that during this entire time you never once provided any data on the status of blacks in the US following World War II

I didn't because the status of blacks "following" WW2 is irrelevant. For the tenth time, KF, the issue is how the status of Japanese Americans following WW2 compares to the status of blacks in 1964. Those are the starting points of both groups in this comparison of how they faired over the next 2 to 3 decades.

It wasn't until this post here that I finally called your argument regarding welfare into question.

Yes, you issued a sweeping statement implying that poverty decreases "most drastically during expansions of welfare", asked how "giving the poor … snip … money to help with basic necessities caused the black middle class to erode into poverty", and asked if I had a "citation for the 'TRILLIONS' that we've given blacks'". I proved with links and data that your first statement certainly wasn't true where the WOP is concerned. I answered the second question by proving with varioius links that the black community has been the recipient of trillions of dollars in welfare. And I addressed the first question with links that discuss the motivation killing aspects of welfare and which indicate that 45% of black children of parents who were middle class in 1968 are now in the lowest fifth of earners. Which you ignored. :D


Post #376 does not mention the WoP.

I'm sorry, I meant post #367.

None of these were addressed to me, especially not Post #390 and #401. Furthermore, I haven't even read them. Hell, I still haven't read them.

LOL! So I have to repeat everything I post on this subject to you *specifically* for it to count? :rolleyes: Is that another characteristic of liberals/leftists? :D


I'm pretty sure Rule #1 was "don't deliberately quote someone out of context in order to make a strawman against them."

I didn't quote you out of context. Nor did I make a strawman. A strawman is when person A has position X but person B ignores position X and instead attacks position Y (that the position didn't mention), concluding that it is false. But I attacked something you actually said … that "it doesn't matter how [social security] was sold to the public" by simply noting your statement demonstrates what communist admirers (and you've admitted being one) think. Maybe Rule #1 of the big book of "Honesty and Integrity" is don't be a communist admirer? Afterall, communism is inconsistent with "Honesty and Integrity", as history proves. :D

I'm claiming that welfare in general helps reduce poverty rates.

And I'm claiming just the opposite (especially when there is too much welfare). History seems to support my, not your, view.

And even if it didn't, that it simply is the right thing to do and always preferable to allowing people to starve to death in the streets.

LOL! Here you go again, trying to change the playing field. Sorry, but I think history shows that massive welfare is not the right thing to do, because in the end it makes the situation worse. Communism/socialism sounds wonderful on paper but the reality is that both destroy the economy, independence and self-motivation, and in the end that makes everyone poorer so that far more people starve to death in the streets.

Are you attempting to claim SS is not welfare?

LOL! Do you have reading problem?


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The unfunded liabilities for the Social Security system currently stand at more than $17 trillion (http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662 ). And they only headed towards such astronomical heights after 1964 and the liberal thinking that made SS mostly welfare took control. And Medicare's unfunded liabilities are even larger thanks to that same liberal thinking.

I consider it spectacularly dishonest on the part of the NCPA to lump Medicare/Medicaid liabilities in with SS in order to boost the number; this was done to incite panic, pure and simple.

… snip a long off-topic and misleading rant …


Just so everyone is clear, the number that KF is referring to isn't the unfunded liability of $17 trillion mentioned above (that is JUST SS) but a total unfunded liability of $107 trillion (both SS and Medicare). And I don't see the dishonesty at all, KF. Those are the numbers, like it or not. What is spectacularly dishonest is your attempt to ignore the fact that SS was sold to the public as taking in more money than it would pay out.


any alternate pay system will result in the poor getting screwed.

So in your mind, the poor get screwed if they don't get something for nothing?

resulting in the people who need welfare least receiving the most welfare benefits.

Sort of like the way Obama has handed out jobs under the stimulus? :D


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Fine. But you did say that the drop was most drastic after SS began, implying that it's SS that is mostly responsible for that, aren't you?

No, I simply stated that poverty levels dropped most drastically during major expansions of our welfare program.

Then I'm not sure you had much of a point to make. :D

And here you go again, using the plural word "expansionS", when you haven't provided but one example and I've shown several examples where just the opposite occurred (poverty went up following major expansions of welfare).

I mentioned it because you were blaming welfare for black poverty. You then attempted to focus welfare solely on the WoP and I brought up SS in order to demonstrate that welfare existed before the WoP.

No, I'm blaming welfare for making black poverty worse … for keeping blacks poor. Not for being the sole cause of black poverty. And before 1964, SS wasn't largely directed at blacks anyway. In fact, those who benefited most from it were those who paid into it (and those were in large part not black).


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
All it has done has hide it and delay the impact on our society. And perhaps make it worse in the end.

A statement you're comfortable making sans evidence I see.


I've provided plenty of evidence of that. Even in just the posts I made to you (since you admit you haven't bothered reading the rest of my posts on this thread). :D

The only thing I'm pointing out is that it is confirmation that government spending can stimulate an economy in recession/depression.

Except it didn't. The New Deal hindered the economy. Many economists (especially non-communist/socialist admiring ones) have noted that obvious fact. I've quoted some of them during discussions about the New Deal (for example … http://hnn.us/articles/3800.html and http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx ). Did you not see those sources?

Even FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, agreed with that assessment. Eight years after the start of the New Deal, he wrote the following: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. … snip … We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started .... and an enormous debt to boot!". Why would you not believe him, KF? Do you think you know more about the New Deal than him? Or did you just miss my pointing that out the many times I have because I didn't specifically post it to you? :rolleyes:

Or consider what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr … an acclaimed New Deal historian and admirer of FDR … .said in his book "The National Experience" (from 1963). He said "Though the policies of the Hundred Days had ended despair, they had not produced recovery." Do you think you know more about the New Deal than him? Or more about it than the Brookings Institute (a left leaning think tank), which published a 900 page report on the impact of the New Deal's National Recovery Administration and concluded that "on the whole it retarded recovery"?

…[snip]…

I'm curious why you snipped and then simply ignored all of this:


But I do find that it's widely reported (e.g., http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/The-Effects-of-Welfare-Reform ) that during the 1920s more than half of Americans were poor by today's standards. The question is what was the poverty rate in 1934 when SS as we know it began? Well here's a source (http://www.raybinassociates.com/downloads/giving_recovery.pdf ) that says the poverty rate was above 40% in the 1930s. FDR himself observed that elderly poverty (the groups with the highest poverty rate) was 40% in New York in 1934. So let's just use 40% even though FDR also said in 1937 that "one-third of the nation" was "ill-housed, ill-clad, [and] ill-nourished". Seems to me, those facts suggest the poverty rate had dropped (from 50%) before SS even began. And in 1959, if it was still 35% (as indicated in http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/16/business/yourmoney/16view.html?_r=1 ), that would suggest a drop of just 5% or less in the 25 years after SS went into effect. Given those facts, it's hard to conclude that SS did what you claimed. That it wasn't in fact a huge fail as poverty reduction programs go.

Further evidence that poverty rates were dropping before Social Security came along are facts like these (http://www.baas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=217%3Ajames-t-patterson-the-welfare-state-in-america-1930-1980&catid=18&Itemid=11#ch1 ):


However one measured that progress—by the quality of diets, housing, availability of home appliances, spread of electricity and central heating—most Americans were much better off in 1929 than they had been in 1880 or 1900. In 1929 only 3.2 percent of the labor force was unemployed. By then, even working-class families could afford to buy cars. Most dramatic, perhaps, were improvements in health which were reflected in statistics on longevity. Life expectancy at birth was 47 years in 1900, 60 in 1930. There were 7 million Americans aged 55 or more in 1900, and 15 million in 1930. … snip … Moreover, by the 1920s poverty seemed to be fading away as the second and third generations of once poor immigrants moved up the occupational ladder and out of their urban ghettos. Observers who perceived poverty in this way were admittedly speculating, for they lacked reliable studies on the extent to which poverty was chronic or culturally transmitted. But subsequent historical research suggests that social mobility for working-class Americans at the time was indeed substantial. Probably at least 30 percent of workers raised in blue-collar households in various American cities in the early twentieth century attained middle-class occupational status between 1880 and 1930.


How could life for most Americans be so much better in 1930 than it was in 1880 or 1900, unless the poverty rate was dropping before the introduction of SS?


The above certainly seems pertinent to this discussion. :D

SS is an area in which government intervention is simply more efficient than the market.

Just remember this number folks. SS has an unfunded liability of $17 TRILLION dollars. KF thinks that's "efficient". :rolleyes:


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
… snip … So I'll ask you again. How do you explain a nearly 4% drop in poverty when the amount of welfare that resulted from the EOA and SSA was tiny in those first two years (because it took time for a welfare pipeline to be established) as proven by the figure I supplied earlier? Why were the subsequent decreases in poverty so small in comparison, in the years after that when welfare spending was so much, much greater? … snip …

I pointed that out in the next paragraph. Welfare spending has increased but people are receiving fewer benefits.

Not until long after those first 2 years. Per capita benefits didn't start dropping until 1978. If, as you claim, the WOP was responsible for the 4% drop in the first two years (from 1964 to 1966), when WOP spending was tiny, why didn't that dramatic decline continue over the next 10 years when total spending increased dramatically (5 to 10 fold) and the individual average benefit also increased (another 30 percent)? Instead the poverty rate leveled off after dropping only another 2 to 3 percent. You need to explain that, KF … not ignore it.

Definitions of recession on the web. Stagflation could also be a pretty big factor as well. Also, look at the graph I provided to you one more time.

That's not an adequate explanation. Your graph shows the 1970 recession occurred about a year after poverty rates were already headed back up. The 1974 recession occurred after the poverty rate had leveled off. And if you look at GDP growth between 1968 and 1978 (http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230 ), you find that real GDP (which accounts for the effect of inflation) grew about 35% even though population grew only 11% during that time. Overall, that's only about one percent less growth than was seen on average during the 60s.

Also, after 1978, welfare did not decrease on the whole. While it may be true that individuals started to receive less benefits when they got welfare, far more people got benefits. So one would still expect that poverty rates would have continued downward. But they didn't. They started going back up. You need to explain that, KF … not just ignore it like you've been doing. :D

Your dates are a tad bit off.

No, my dates are not off. Look again.

I've stated in the past that welfare is simply incapable of lowering poverty on its own, but it can certainly contribute alongside economic prosperity.

Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason the economy floundered in the 70s is because of the massive increase in welfare spending and government that occurred at that time? In fact, isn't it curious how often we see the economy floundering when there are massive increases in welfare and the scope of government. As in the 30s. As in 70s. As we are seeing now, under Obama. Whereas, when government and welfare are trimmed back … as occurred during the Kennedy years, during the Reagan years and even during the Clinton years (thanks to a republican congress) the economy booms (and poverty drops). But leftists like you will never look at history and learn. :D


The spending still has to be properly allocated. Obviously no one thinks that giving out welfare benefits to Bill Gates is going to reduce poverty.

LOL! Talk about deliberately missing the point. If benefits paid to individuals who receive welfare drop an average of 40% per person but total welfare spending increase by 10 times, then the number of welfare recipients has to have increased by 15 times. Looks to me like welfare made a lot of people poor who had not been poor. Unless you want to claim that all those new recipients didn't need really need welfare. :D

What I stated was that they presided over increases in the poverty rate.

That's is indeed all you originally claimed, not what you last claimed was your point, namely: "I'm looking at trends wondering why poverty in the 70's-90's was utterly unable to recover following recession." As I said, your intial comment didn't even mention the word "recession".

Clearly I was wrong about Clinton and I have no idea how I came to that conclusion. But Reagan did indeed preside over an increase in poverty rates.

But the poverty rate was already increasing years before Reagan took office. Reagan's policies are clearly what slowed and then stopped that increase … and they did so within the first two years of his administration (which I would call a success). From then on, the poverty rate dropped every year … another success.

When Reagan left office his poverty rates were not below pre-recession levels from the late 70’s, meaning from the time the recession began in the late 70’s to the time Reagan left office the poverty rate increased.

But not from the time that Reagan took office. When Reagan left office, the poverty rate was BELOW what it was at the time Reagan took office. So your statement that Reagan "preside[d] over an increase in poverty rates" is highly deceptive. The only reason the rates increased during Reagan's term is that they were already increasing when he entered office. They were bound to go up some more before he could fix things. Do you actually believe that they should have started dropping the moment he entered office otherwise any increase from then on is his fault? Even ultra-conservatives don't claim the recession should have ended the very moment that Obama took office. But that appears to be your logic. :rolleyes:

What I’m criticizing Reagan for is failing to bring poverty down to pre-recession levels

Below the 1980 recession level … years before he even entered office? Well why don't you blame him for failing to bring it down below the level it before the 1975 recession? Because that would be just as logical. Or I should say … illogical. If fact, Obama has now had 2 years in office. Why hasn't he brought the poverty rate down below what it was in 1980, much less 1975? Why aren't you out there crusading about that? :D

I criticize him for a whole host of other things he and supply-siders promised and failed to deliver.

Cite for us the speech where Reagan promised to bring the poverty rate down below what it was in 1980. You are only proving what I said about you in my last post. That's it's clear this *debate* has become a waste of time because you aren't even trying to be honest, factual or logical. I'm only posting now to point how much communist koolaid you've swallowed.

I don’t really feel the need to give him credit for bringing poverty rates below what they were during a recession his administration started, purposefully.

LOL! I'm curious … why aren't you complaining about Carter? He had a recession during his administration which your chart shows ended in early 1980. Then for a whole year after that, before Reagan won the 1980 election and took office in January 1981, the poverty rate continued to climb. Dramatically. Why don't you give Reagan the same leeway especially since the the poverty rate was already climbing when he entered office?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
LOL! Your figure shows that the poverty rate was climbing well before the 1979 recession began, and continued to climb between the 1979 and the 1981-82 recession. Explain that?

Stagflation

But Reagan had to deal with stagflation too, during his first years of office when the poverty rate continued climbing. And that recession you say he deliberated caused was the price the economy paid for ending stagflation. So perhaps you should give Reagan some credit for managing to stop stagflation and thus bring the poverty rate down below what it was when he entered office? Or would you have preferred he let stagflation continue and the poverty rate climb even higher as a result? :D

"You people"? Taking a quick look around my computer I can see I'm the only one here.

I'm just lumping you with all the other communists and socialists. Seems appropriate since you seem to like to defend them. :D

For that matter, it'll take a mighty set of brazen balls to conclude that recession has little-to-no effect on poverty rates.

Taking a quick look around my computer, I don't see anyone concluding that. In fact, I don't even find anyone who is all that interested in continuing this farce of a debate with you, KF. :D


You are aware that my chart refers to poverty rates as a nation and doesn't highlight inner city poverty rates, right? So that would make this entire paragraph completely false, right?

Well go ahead … prove that inner city poverty rates went up (while poverty rates as a whole decreased dramatically) in the last 6 years of Reagan's term? Page 9 of this (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1539&page=9 ) suggests just the opposite. It states that


The poverty rate, meaning the incidence of poverty in central cities, was 14.2 percent in 1970, reached 19.9 percent in 1982 during the recession, then declined to 18 percent in 1986.

:D


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
That's the problem with those who admire communists and those who are communists. They tend to overlook the impact of economic growth in the equation. And how lowering taxes stimulate that growth.

I don't think you realize how crazy you sound when you say this.


I don't think you realize how crazy you sound when you deny that.

I never claimed welfare spending didn't triple, just that welfare benefits are going down.

You quoted my saying this:


The US went from spending half a trillion dollars on welfare in the 70s to spending almost 3 times that in the 80s. Here's a chart that shows Welfare spending over time. … snip …


then responded with this:


Review the information I've given you, weep, then return to me. Hopefully you'll finally realize that your far-right sources are lying to you.


What else was I to think than that you were challenging the statement that US spending on welfare tripled in the 80s? It's the only fact you cited when you said my sources were lying to me.

I suppose those gains the black community made economically for the past 60+ years are worthless because poverty went up in the last decade.

Well some blacks seem to think so. I fact, I recall the First Lady saying back in 2008 that she had nothing to be proud about her entire adult life regarding this country. I guess she thinks all those years of progress vis a vis black poverty were "worthless" and no cause for … hope. :D


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I already provided that information to you in post #435. First, I quoted http://www.friesian.com/stats.htm stating that in 1959 the "non-white" poverty rate was 58.2% and in 1964 it was 49.8%. In the 5 years leading up to the start of the WOP, the non-white poverty rate dropped 8.4%. What caused it to do that, KF?
I also quoted http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3864 saying that the "poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960." That's a 40% drop in the 20 years before the WOP. Again, what caused that to happen, KF?

Evasion so noted.

LOL! How on Earth can you claim that's an evasion? You quoted me stating that "the poverty rate was dropping rapidly … in the 10 years before the WOP began" (which I posted in direct response to you stating "The rate of poverty for blacks has been steadily decreasing") and then challenged my statement as pertaining to the "population at large" rather than blacks, and asking if I had a graph for that (i.e., the drop in black poverty in the 10 years before 1964). My response was to cite 2 sources I'd previously provided to you that showed what the "non-white"/black poverty rate was doing between 1940 and 1964. That's not in any way evasive. You are the one doing the evading here, KF. :D

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Better than any conjecture you might offer to explain that. And yes, I have offered a number of sources that back up that assertion. But I guess you just ignored them as well. Guess there is none so blind as a communist admirer.

I can't seem to find them, would you mind pointing them out again?

What's the point? As the last example shows, you can't even follow the discussion from one post past back. I've decided not to waste more time with your obfuscations, derails, distortions and lies. I believe I've proved all I needed to prove. :D


You’re still ignoring that people received less benefits. I don’t know how many times I have to explain this before you understand the fallacy you’re making. It doesn’t matter if we increase welfare spending by four or five trillion dollars if people receive fewer benefits as a result. The fact that we tripled welfare spending simply doesn’t matter.

So the fact that we increased the number of people getting welfare (even if they get 30% less than they did before) by a FACTOR OF 15 doesn't matter? :rolleyes: Well there you have it, folks … a communist admirer's way of looking at the world. :D

And likewise I’m now skeptical to the idea that you’ve ever even seen the inside of a college.

Really? Well then isn't it surprising that you'd have such difficulty winning a debate with someone who you think hasn't seen the inside of a college? Afterall, you must now feel greatly superior to me in intelligence and knowledge, and it must a shock to find that intelligence and knowledge you've gained from your time in college hasn't allowed you to just squash me like a bug. I think you are in for an even bigger shock when you get out in the real world and actually have to find and hold on to a job.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So you think there's no friction between African immigrants and native-American blacks?

I didn’t say that, now did I?

You seemed to be implying it. Rather than just questioning my statement, you could have spent a minute or two locating sources like the ones I found and then nodded your head in agreement. But then that would have required you read something other than what I post specifically to you. And we all know where you stand on that. :D


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I think a little more independent thought is needed in a group where 90 plus percent vote democrat in elections.

Oh please, you and I both know that the issue has nothing to do with “independent thought”.

Sure it does. I don't find even one other group where 90+% of it's members vote as a block for one party or the other. Given the complexity and number of important issues, what else can it be than a lack of "independent thought"?

And I certainly notice that you aren’t going to be throwing a fit over the voting habits of white, middle-ages, evangelical males.

Well ...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/9/young-evangelicals-voting-habits-differ/


But among white evangelicals ages 18 to 34, fully 65 percent support the Arizona senator and just 29 percent back Mr. Obama. This is just slightly less than the 69-to-25 gap in Mr. McCain's favor among older evangelicals.


As I said, I don't find even one other group that comes close to the 90+ % support that blacks give democrats. Not even close.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
No, I did not. Stop lying.

This is typically the part where you outline how I lied.

Now how would I prove that I didn't claim "the WOP concerned entirely with welfare for blacks" without reposting every single statement I've made on this thread and dissecting it? You ask too much. You ask something that would probably drive the few readers that are left to the hills. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if you just posted the statement where I said what you claim? In other words, if you backed up your assertion. But of course, you can't, can you? Because you are a liar.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Gee, KF, rather than toss out red herrings, can't you find even one valid explanation why the black community wasn't able to do what Japanese Americans did in the two decades after WW2? Can't you find even one valid explanation for why trillions and trillions of welfare dollars failed to impact black poverty? Why a segment of society that was given trillions and trillions of dollars had a poverty rate 600% percent higher than everyone else? It's almost like they weren't trying.

First, it’s not a red herring. Second, you’ve had the reasons explained to you numerous times but you’re too much of a partisan to accept any of them.


Let me repeat that. LIAR.

[BeAChooser]

:words:

Other organization associated with black millitancy were created prior to 1964. The Nation of Islam was created in 1930 with many of the same tenets and ideology associated with the Black milliatantcy or the like.

LOL! So you want to compare the Black Panthers to a group whose early leaders taught its members that the white race was created 6000 years ago by a black scientist? LOL!

And by the way, there is little similarity between that list of Black Panther Party demands I provided and what the Nation of Islam was preaching back in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and early 70s. What they advocated was a separate black nation … separate from white society in every way … including economically. They weren't demanding free health care and welfare dependency.

Oh and by the way, when WW2 rolled around, the NOI was urging Muslims NOT to resist Fascism and openly supported the Japanese war effort. Not exactly the sort of *model* organization of reasonable black thought that you should be holding up. :D

Only that i've found no proof he was even aware of the offer or that he actually "refused" to take the test.

LOL! You mean you believe that not one of the Congressman's aides or fellow Congressmen knew about or told him about Breitbart's very generous offer? That not one of them follow what is being said on websites and news outlets like these … biggovernment.com, michellemalkin.com, reason.com, hannity.com, thenewyorker.com, townhall.com, nationalreview.com, salon.com, dailykos.com, newsbuster.org, blackpointofview.com, washingtonpost.com, sodahead.com, thehill.com, anncoulter.com, glennbeck.com, freerepublic.com, littlegreenfootballs.com, etc? Wow, they must be living in a cave as deep and dark as Osama's. And I guess they just missed a golden opportunity to help their people. :rolleyes: Seriously, I believe the offer is still open. Why don't you contact his office and let them know. Just think what $10,000 (or is it $100,000) could do for some poor college bound black youth. :D

lol the American polygraph association.

http://www.polygraph.org/section/about-us/mission-statement


Established in 1966, the American Polygraph Association (APA) consists of over 2500 members dedicated to providing a valid and reliable means to verify the truth and establish the highest standards of moral, ethical, and professional conduct in the polygraph field. The American Polygraph Association continues to be the leading polygraph professional association, establishing standards of ethical practices, techniques, instrumentation, research, and advanced training and continuing educational programs.

And it seems to me that if it's good enough for the NSA, DSS and police, it should be good enough for you and Congressman Lewis.

I direct you to the wikipedia page:

LOL!

A 1997 survey of 421 psychologists estimated the test's average accuracy at about 61%, a little better than chance.

I wouldn't say that survey is definitive. Here's all the detail I could find on it:

http://www.police-test.net/dell.htm


This survey appears in the June issue of the American Psychological Association's (APA) Journal of Applied Psychology.

To obtain a scientific opinion on lie detector tests, members of the Society for Psychophysiological Research (SPR) and Fellows of the APA's Division of General Psychology were asked how accurate three different polygraphs were in detecting deception techniques.

The Control Question Test (CQT) ... snip ...

The Directed Lie Test (DLT) ... snip ... The Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT) ... snip ...

A total of 421 psychologists with expertise in psychophysiology and statistics responded to two survey questions. The survey results found that psychologists and psychophysiologists doubted the accuracy claims that have been made by the polygraph community.

That's it. Did any of the psychologists actually have expertise in polygraph tests? How were they picked? How many didn't respond? What were the specific survey questions? Do we know anything else at all? I can't seem to find any details. Can you?


So Marxism and Communism are synonyms now?

:rolleyes:

Quote:
But it is relevant to what the folks who've surrounded Obama mean by "social justice".

It was irrelevant to my statement.

But it's still relevant to the issue at hand. :D

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Edit: I had a full response up today but after reviewing it, it has an unacceptable number of grammatical/spelling errors among other mistakes. Some arguments aren't up made to what I would normally consider my standards. Not to mention it's late and my internet seems to be dying out on me, so I'll make some edits and have it re-posted tomorrow.

[Juniversal]

LOL! So you want to compare the Black Panthers to a group whose early leaders taught its members that the white race was created 6000 years ago by a black scientist? LOL!

And by the way, there is little similarity between that list of Black Panther Party demands I provided and what the Nation of Islam was preaching back in the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s and early 70s. What they advocated was a separate black nation … separate from white society in every way … including economically. They weren't demanding free health care and welfare dependency.

Oh and by the way, when WW2 rolled around, the NOI was urging Muslims NOT to resist Fascism and openly supported the Japanese war effort. Not exactly the sort of *model* organization of reasonable black thought that you should be holding up. :DHoly strawman Batman!! :boggled: Where exactly did I say anything about the nation of Islam being a "model organization of reasonable black thought?" I was simply using the NOI as a group associated with black militancy (i.e. a reflection of "black resentment") that existed prior to the big bad "WOP". I imagine your contention is that the they Panthers garnered the interest to create the 10 point program after the war on poverty was created?


LOL! You mean you believe that not one of the Congressman's aides or fellow Congressmen knew about or told him about Breitbart's very generous offer? That not one of them follow what is being said on websites and news outlets like these … biggovernment.com, michellemalkin.com, reason.com, hannity.com, thenewyorker.com, townhall.com, nationalreview.com, salon.com, dailykos.com, newsbuster.org, blackpointofview.com, washingtonpost.com, sodahead.com, thehill.com, anncoulter.com, glennbeck.com, freerepublic.com, littlegreenfootballs.com, etc? Wow, they must be living in a cave as deep and dark as Osama's. And I guess they just missed a golden opportunity to help their people. :rolleyes: Seriously, I believe the offer is still open. Why don't you contact his office and let them know. Just think what $10,000 (or is it $100,000) could do for some poor college bound black youth. :DI have no clue if he's aware of Breitbarts offer. I've seen nothing that would prove otherwise. Considering Breitbarts aggressive nature I can't imagine why he wouldn't loudly proclaim Lewis' dismissall of the offer if he had actually refused it. And why would I contact his office and subsequently give the exposure right wing hack Andrew Breitbart so intensely desires? ;) I cringe at the parade he'd have over any negative result.


http://www.polygraph.org/section/about-us/mission-statement



And it seems to me that if it's good enough for the NSA, DSS and police, it should be good enough for you and Congressman Lewis.Those who were wrongly indicted of a crime party due to a "failed" polygraph test would disagree. ;)


I wouldn't say that survey is definitive. Here's all the detail I could find on it:

http://www.police-test.net/dell.htm



That's it. Did any of the psychologists actually have expertise in polygraph tests? How were they picked? How many didn't respond? What were the specific survey questions? Do we know anything else at all? I can't seem to find any details. Can you? This (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/141981.html) page has a more thorough dissection of the study towards the middle of the text. And this study certainly isn't the only source that disputes the high accuracy of the polygraph.

[rkzenrage]

Damn... that is funny as hell!

[Apology]

What is this thread about again? Japanese Black Tea Party Panthers taking polygraphs? I can't remember any more :confused:

[thaiboxerken]

It's about the Tea Party claiming that it hasn't adopted racially motivated groups, when they clearly have.

[Neally]

adopted racially motivated groups.

What exactly does that mean, and what is the evidence?

[Grizzly Bear]

and what is the evidence?
They chose a political poll that addresses political ideology with little to no bearing on actual racist tendencies. I have to admit that their hyper-biased interpretation of polling is certainly deceptive unique. I made a post about it a few weeks ago (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6147410&postcount=266) of course it can be explained a million times why the polls (or their interpretations of them) are dubious, the idea that political ideology =/= racism is practically taboo on this subject

[thaiboxerken]

What exactly does that mean, and what is the evidence?

It means that they simply don't have a problem with groups, like Storm Front, joining their party.