• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Welfare Majority Coalition

T

The Prof

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
12,828
Reaction score
1,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
from the famous "redistribution" speech, loyola, 1998:

"how do you engage people in questions of policy that affect them and how do you make them feel that they actually have some significant power over these issues?"

"because the people who are guilty of disempowering the population are not only the bad guys---i won't be partisan here and say who the bad guys are---it's not only the folks who are representing the special interests, quote unquote, the guys with the pinkie, y'know, diamond rings and the fat cats, sometimes it's also us, sometimes it's the experts, the advocates who are not that much better at advocating on behalf of and with the communities they purport to represent, so that the lobbyists down at springfield who represent a whole host of good causes i strongly believe in often times have very few troops behind them"

"if we are gonna win on these policy debates it will take more than simply being armed with good facts and good presentations, it will also have to do with the fact that we have mobilized a constituency around these policy questions"

“what i think will re-engage people in politics is if we’re doing significant, serious policy work around what i will label the working poor, although my definition of the working poor is not simply folks making minimum wage, but it’s also families of four who are making $30,000 a year, they are struggling, and to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward”

"one of the good things about welfare reform, which the 1996 legislation i did not entirely agree with and probably would have voted against at the federal level, but one good thing that comes out of it is it essentially desegregates the welfare population which is presumably black and undeserving and urban vs the working poor which are the other people"

"now you just have one batch of folks, folks who are working but don't have health insurance, aren't making much money, can't figure out day care, spend an hour and a half trying to commute to the jobs that do exist, don't have much opportunity for enhancing their skills so they could actually move up into an income bracket that would support a family"

"that is increasingly a majority population"

"the new immigrant population is much less skilled, is much more apt to be in this category of working poor that we've talked about, is having the same problems that folks who've been here awhile already are having, and what this means is that gives us an opportunity to do some organizing that we couldn't do before"

Full audio of 1998 Obama 'redistribution' speech | The Daily Caller
 
This is what Obama is all about - government determined by the masses of people who are incapable (for whatever reason - bad luck, lack of intelligence, laziness, inexperience, etc.) of providing for their needs. He wants to promise these people that they can have the same things the 'rich' folks have. But the only way that works in the long term is to reduce the stuff the rich have until they are not rich anymore.

His version of democracy is akin to Chavez - or any other 3rd world strong man. Let the government officials live in luxury while the rest of the nation is in misery. So long as they can win 'elections' they continue to suppress the natural capacity of the nation for securing rising prosperity and opportunity for everyone.
 
 
Rokkitsci said:
This is what Obama is all about - government determined by the masses of people who are incapable (for whatever reason - bad luck, lack of intelligence, laziness, inexperience, etc.) of providing for their needs. He wants to promise these people that they can have the same things the 'rich' folks have. But the only way that works in the long term is to reduce the stuff the rich have until they are not rich anymore.

His version of democracy is akin to Chavez - or any other 3rd world strong man. Let the government officials live in luxury while the rest of the nation is in misery. So long as they can win 'elections' they continue to suppress the natural capacity of the nation for securing rising prosperity and opportunity for everyone.
Click to expand...

So how would redistribution result in everyone living in misery? In order for that to be true, a large percentage of the American populace must already be living in misery or worse. In 2007, the top 20% of the U.S. population owned 85% of the wealth. Please explain how redistribution of all that would fail to raise the standard of living of the other 80%. That's like claiming you divide 10 pies evenly among 5 people and somehow each of them only gets one pie. Being less rich isn't living in misery.
 
If you make $11 an hour, you have a job. That means one less unemployed person. Why is this being used as a negative issue? Sign waving is a real job, we have hundreds if not thousands in my city. Whenever I see one, I feel bad that they have such a crappy, low paying job and that hopefully it's temporary but I respect them for supporting themselves at such inglorious work. Is this wrong?

That's a real question, politely expressed.




The Prof said:
seiu protesters paid $11 per hour, cleveland:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=G5DTqvX74O4
Click to expand...
 
The Prof said:
from the famous "redistribution" speech, loyola, 1998:

"how do you engage people in questions of policy that affect them and how do you make them feel that they actually have some significant power over these issues?"

"because the people who are guilty of disempowering the population are not only the bad guys---i won't be partisan here and say who the bad guys are---it's not only the folks who are representing the special interests, quote unquote, the guys with the pinkie, y'know, diamond rings and the fat cats, sometimes it's also us, sometimes it's the experts, the advocates who are not that much better at advocating on behalf of and with the communities they purport to represent, so that the lobbyists down at springfield who represent a whole host of good causes i strongly believe in often times have very few troops behind them"

"if we are gonna win on these policy debates it will take more than simply being armed with good facts and good presentations, it will also have to do with the fact that we have mobilized a constituency around these policy questions"

“what i think will re-engage people in politics is if we’re doing significant, serious policy work around what i will label the working poor, although my definition of the working poor is not simply folks making minimum wage, but it’s also families of four who are making $30,000 a year, they are struggling, and to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward”

"one of the good things about welfare reform, which the 1996 legislation i did not entirely agree with and probably would have voted against at the federal level, but one good thing that comes out of it is it essentially desegregates the welfare population which is presumably black and undeserving and urban vs the working poor which are the other people"

"now you just have one batch of folks, folks who are working but don't have health insurance, aren't making much money, can't figure out day care, spend an hour and a half trying to commute to the jobs that do exist, don't have much opportunity for enhancing their skills so they could actually move up into an income bracket that would support a family"

"that is increasingly a majority population"

"the new immigrant population is much less skilled, is much more apt to be in this category of working poor that we've talked about, is having the same problems that folks who've been here awhile already are having, and what this means is that gives us an opportunity to do some organizing that we couldn't do before"

Full audio of 1998 Obama 'redistribution' speech | The Daily Caller
Click to expand...

Quoting Obama is Racist. Just sayin...
 
Loki97 said:
In 2007, the top 20% of the U.S. population owned 85% of the wealth. Please explain how redistribution of all that would fail to raise the standard of living of the other 80%.
Click to expand...
It might raise it temporarily, but would hurt in the long run. Money that had been invested and was adding to the economy is pissed away. Much like how inheritances and lotto winnings are pissed away.
 
Taylor said:
It might raise it temporarily, but would hurt in the long run. Money that had been invested and was adding to the economy is pissed away. Much like how inheritances and lotto winnings are pissed away.
Click to expand...

I should have known, only our overlords have the wisdom to inherit wealth. The rest of us poor serfs couldn't begin to comprehend the arcane secrets they possess. I guess you have proof that if I was given 1000 shares of one of Mitt's stocks I'm immediately going to sell it and put the money in magic beans right? What is really enlightening is that the grimmer the outlook for Romney gets the more the mask slips from the right and reveals its arrogance.
 
specklebang said:
If you make $11 an hour, you have a job. That means one less unemployed person. Why is this being used as a negative issue?
Click to expand...
Negative?? For those of us voting for Change... it's just the opposite. I hope they have such a hard time finding people willing to protest Romney that they're forced to pay 15 or 20 dollars an hour.
 
Rokkitsci said:
This is what Obama is all about - government determined by the masses of people who are incapable (for whatever reason - bad luck, lack of intelligence, laziness, inexperience, etc.) of providing for their needs. He wants to promise these people that they can have the same things the 'rich' folks have. But the only way that works in the long term is to reduce the stuff the rich have until they are not rich anymore.

His version of democracy is akin to Chavez - or any other 3rd world strong man. Let the government officials live in luxury while the rest of the nation is in misery. So long as they can win 'elections' they continue to suppress the natural capacity of the nation for securing rising prosperity and opportunity for everyone.
Click to expand...

Obama believes it's his - and the governments duty to dictate outcomes instead of the individual dictating his/her own outcome.

Communists believe in dictated outcomes, socialists believe in dictated outcomes, authoritarians and totalitarians believe in dictated outcomes...

All those aforementioned ideas exist because some crazy fool at the wheel believes they can dictate the outcome of a populace.

In short these crazies in government actually believe they have the right or authority to dictate who succeeds and who fails and they use legislation, regulation and taxes to redistribute to determine that.
 
Loki97 said:
I should have known, only our overlords have the wisdom to inherit wealth. The rest of us poor serfs couldn't begin to comprehend the arcane secrets they possess.
Click to expand...
Just those of you not doing it already. Those that have "the wisdom" tend not to spend a lot of time whining about how hard life is because other people have money they won't give you.
 
Taylor said:
Just those of you not doing it already. Those that have "the wisdom" tend not to spend a lot of time whining about how hard life is because other people have money they won't give you.
Click to expand...

Let me see Mitt the superhero show us how to have any meaningful investments on 25k a year. I can see you are an economic genius when you don't even realize the flaw in your original(and still unsupported) assertion the money would be "pissed away". Unless there was a sudden mass of people falling for Nigerian Internet scams, the money would still be recycled into the economy and would end up in someone's hands. Thanks for once again displaying that the elitists aren't really elite at all. We can see why you would desperately need an imbalanced status quo in order to prosper.
 
Mr.Nick said:
I saw that video earlier today....

Funny how progressives need to pay layman to push their elitist ideology....

They may as well hold signs that read: "I'm a slave for a cell phone and Obama change."

It's sad to say it but people should need a license to vote - they should have to pass some civics exam to vote.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but as someone who lives in DC: The vast majority of protesters and fundraisers are paid on both sides. I could work for Greenpeace or republicans, don't believe me?

http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/gov/3265592059.html

Both sides do this, it is normal, and it happens all the time not just in election season. There is no controversy here, it you want a grassroots million man march in this day and age you are coughing up $ to get it.
 
Loki97 said:
Let me see Mitt the superhero show us how to have any meaningful investments on 25k a year.
Click to expand...
Again, if you have "the wisdom" you're not going to sit around in a 25k a year job, hoping Obama will come along and redirect another $1,000 your way so you can finally "make it."
I can see you are an economic genius when you don't even realize the flaw in your original(and still unsupported) assertion the money would be "pissed away". Unless there was a sudden mass of people falling for Nigerian Internet scams, the money would still be recycled into the economy and would end up in someone's hands.
Click to expand...
There is no flaw. Money is not endlessly recycled through the economy.
 
Loki97 said:
I should have known, only our overlords have the wisdom to inherit wealth. The rest of us poor serfs couldn't begin to comprehend the arcane secrets they possess. I guess you have proof that if I was given 1000 shares of one of Mitt's stocks I'm immediately going to sell it and put the money in magic beans right? What is really enlightening is that the grimmer the outlook for Romney gets the more the mask slips from the right and reveals its arrogance.
Click to expand...

If someone works hard, does not waste his money but instead saves for his children why do his children have a duty to pay for your existence
 
Taylor said:
Again, if you have "the wisdom" you're not going to sit around in a 25k a year job, hoping Obama will come along and redirect another $1,000 your way so you can finally "make it."

There is no flaw. Money is not endlessly recycled through the economy.
Click to expand...

Yes, I forgot, in the fantasy world of the right people get whatever jobs their ability merits and always attain the level of success they deserve. Things like nepotism, discrimination(not just based on race) just don't exist. Too bad facts don't bear it out.

Rags to riches? That's Hollywood fiction, study finds - Economy Watch

Now that that is debunked, where does the money go? If I spend my windfall on beer and beef jerky, whoever makes the beer and beef jerky as well as the retailer will benefit from my purchase. It isn't like all the money in the hands of the current financial ruling class stays in this country. Just ask Mitt about his offshore accounts. OH, that's right, that's another issue he refuses to talk about.
 
TurtleDude said:
If someone works hard, does not waste his money but instead saves for his children why do his children have a duty to pay for your existence
Click to expand...

The problem is you cannot have a system that you describe as fair and equitable when inheritance plays such a large role in many people's success as adults. Children who are born wealthy do nothing to merit such a huge advantage yet it is one that enables often even the woefully untalented to expand that wealth simply through the doors it opens. Do you really think Paris Hilton would be a "celebutante" if she was born into a lower income family in Kentucky? She'd probably be a waitress or single mother of four living off public assistance.
 
support setting up a new WPA to employ more people if entitlements bother you. we have a lot of infrastructure that needs to be built or repaired.

as for safety nets for those who can't work and unemployment for those between jobs, i have no problem with that. i'd fully support a WPA at least until we get out of this rut, however. ideally, the WPA would kick in automatically during certain serious economic crises, and would scale back as the economy recovers. if a full scale WPA had kicked in during the 2008 crash, we would be in a stronger recovery right now.
 
Loki97 said:
The problem is you cannot have a system that you describe as fair and equitable when inheritance plays such a large role in many people's success as adults. Children who are born wealthy do nothing to merit such a huge advantage yet it is one that enables often even the woefully untalented to expand that wealth simply through the doors it opens. Do you really think Paris Hilton would be a "celebutante" if she was born into a lower income family in Kentucky? She'd probably be a waitress or single mother of four living off public assistance.
Click to expand...

The government has no proper authority to try to make up for such things

and other benefits are FAR MORE arbitrary

for example, the genes that allowed Michael Johnson to win multiple gold medals in Athletics made him a multi millionaire and that was pure blind luck. The genes that made Christy Turlington a multi millionaire supermodel are again pure luck. In the cases of inheritance, the money comes from hard work and self denial by the parent(s). Why do you have a claim to the wealth someone else created and decided to give to his children, or nephews or cousins rather than you?

and most wealthy people are not wealthy due to inheritances. That is another myth from the parasiter playbook
 
Loki97 said:
So how would redistribution result in everyone living in misery? In order for that to be true, a large percentage of the American populace must already be living in misery or worse. In 2007, the top 20% of the U.S. population owned 85% of the wealth. Please explain how redistribution of all that would fail to raise the standard of living of the other 80%. That's like claiming you divide 10 pies evenly among 5 people and somehow each of them only gets one pie. Being less rich isn't living in misery.
Click to expand...

How would you redistribute real estate investment? Under your philosophy that the wealth of the top 20% should be taken from them has a logical flaw in it---you cannot convert property to cash if there are no wealthy people to buy the property because you have taken all their money and they would not buy the property anyway because you would turn around and take it from the buyer because they were wealthy. It reminds me of a black comedian I saw on TV once who said he opposed reparations because the only people who would benefit from all that money were the Cadillac dealers.

Punishing people for success won't make the less successful people suddenly successful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom