• 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!

'Rich People, They Got All This Money… Don't Give Us None'

CycloneWanderer said:
I miss the old sangha with whom I could have a measured conversation with. The one who would actually read what I wrote with the intention to understand. At least when that sangha got sarcastic and mean he at least did it with some measure of wit. Did you secretly kill him and take his place? If so, RIP.

If that hasn't taken place and you are indeed the same person, you shouldn't have failed to notice that I have previously described to you the method by which I make such assumptions. If you have something specific about that method you disagree with, I suggest arguing against it with specificity. Please don't just continue to ask for examples ad infinitum. That's the behavior of a troll and I know you are better than that. (At least, you were before whoever killed you did so and took your place. :2wave:)
Click to expand...

I accept your surrender
 
sangha said:
You obviously believe that it is sometimes appropriate to ascribe one's person's statements to an entire group, but you have not been clear as to when it is appropriate. So far, all I have is two instances where it's OK to ascribe what one black man says to an entire group

I'm hoping that you can actually explain when it is and is not appropriate to do this. However, I have little faith that will be able to do so
Click to expand...

This tired old argument huh? Yea there was one Nazi that didn't hate the Jews so your argument about the Holocaust is invalid. Liberal BS 101. Argue everything but the context of the debate, it's the source, its your spelling, you mean everyone in the whole group, your guy did it too, .... did I miss anything?
 
JumpinJack said:
In the 1800s, the Republican and Democratic parties' positions were reversed from what they are now. And you know that.
Click to expand...
We do? When did this happen?Is there a certificate proclaiming that somewhere? Let's look at just one example that comes to mind.

Robert Carlyle "Bob" Byrd (born Cornelius Calvin Sale, Jr
United States Senator from West Virginia. A member of the Democratic Party, Byrd served as a U.S. Representative from 1953 until 1959 and as a U.S. Senator from 1959 to 2010.
Click to expand...
In the early 1940s, Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to create a new chapter of the Ku Klux Klan in Sophia, West Virginia.[12][13]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob ... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "Suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[19] Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter.[13] When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.[13]

In December 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944[13][20]

In 1946, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."[21] However, when running for the United States House of Representatives in 1952, he announced "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." He said he had joined the Klan because he felt it offered excitement and was anti-communist.[13]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#Ku_Klux_Klan
Republicans didn't end segregation in public schools. It was JFK and LBJ. You don't know your history. Remember how JFK had to send the National Guard down south to ensure the integration was allowed, when the local Republican officials refused to obey the desegregation laws?
Click to expand...
Do you remember George Wallace, Democrat Governor?
George Wallace, the Democratic Governor of Alabama, in a symbolic attempt to keep his inaugural promise of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and stop the desegregation of schools, stood at the door of the auditorium to try to block the entry of two black students, Vivian Malone and James Hood.[1]
The incident brought Wallace into the national spotlight.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door
Wallace is remembered for his Southern populist[2] and segregationist attitudes during the mid-20th century period of the Civil Rights Movement, declaring in his 1963 Inaugural Address that he stood for "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever", and standing in front of the entrance of the University of Alabama in an attempt to stop the enrollment of black students.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace
The KKK is Republican. See "David Duke" (who has endorsed Trump).

The Republicans were behind the Jim Crow laws.
Click to expand...
Not so fast. The main reason I am even responding to this post is because I am tired of hearing these blatantly false claims.
During the Reconstruction period of 1865–1877, federal law provided civil rights protection in the U.S. South for freedmen, the African Americans who had formerly been slaves, and former free blacks. In the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures, having used insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress their voting.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws#Origins_of_Jim_Crow_laws
 
Last edited:

I see I hit a nerve.

Yes, Byrd was only one person with racism in his past....and he apologized and seemed to truly change his views later in life. Not so with Trent Lott and many Republicans, including the Republicans who lynched blacks and bombed black churches and threw trash at little girls as they were going to school....a white school. Just like the Republicans NOW who are trying to block blacks from voting by throwing obstacles in their paths: closing polling places in their districts, requiring certain certifications and photo IDs, narrowing the windows for early voting, and the like. All of which are for the purpose of denying certain citizens their constitutional right to vote, and none of which are based of any instance of wrongdoing or true money issues. A court has recently struck down these laws for that very purpose: Not one instance of voting fraud could be shown, and the "rules" were aimed at and affected primarily certain groups of people.

You may have a version in your head not based on facts, but the truth is there. And that is why blacks are primarily Democrats. They have brains. They know who has historically supported them, as a group. They know which party is beneficial to them, just as you know the Republican Party is beneficial to you. It is not up to me to tell YOU which party is better for you, just as it is not for you to tell others which party is better for them.

Jim Crow laws - Republican. And they continue to this day. Gee...I wonder why minorities don't vote Republican often. The question is why do ANY minorities vote Republican, since Republicans are clearly against them.
 
Last edited:
JumpinJack said:
I see I hit a nerve.

Yes, Byrd was only one person of many....and he apologized and seemed to truly change his views later in life. Not so with Trent Lott and many Republicans, including the Republicans who lynched blacks and bombed black churches and threw trash at little girls as they were going to school....a white school.

You may have a version in your head not based on facts, but the truth is there. And that is why blacks are primarily Democrats. They have brains. They know who has historically supported them, as a group. They know which party is beneficial to them, just as you know the Republican Party is beneficial to you. It is not up to me to tell YOU which party is better for you, just as it is not for you to tell others which party is better for them.
Click to expand...

You ignored all my other points. You made a statement about Jim Crow laws and that was incorrect. You made a statement about the parties switching in the 1800s and that was incorrect. You made a statment about calling out the National Guard because of a Republican and that was incorrect. Do you care to address those points or are you just here for the rhetoric?
 
Mithrae said:
Children of slaves? Like, sons and daughters? Not great-great-great-grandchildren?


#####
#####




Governor George Wallace, of Alabama and Forrest Gump fame, was a Democrat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door

The governors of Alabama, Mississississippppi, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina... all long lines of blue all throughout the 20th century up until at least the 1970s, 80s or 90s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Alabama
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_South_Carolina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Georgia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Louisiana
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Mississippi

The 'southern strategy' often attributed to Richard Nixon may have been responsible for the switch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

I'm merely a foreigner of course: But it's a rare opportunity to brag about things actually learned from this forum :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

The "conservative Democrats" were Republican in ideology. Those are now the southern Republicans that hold the southern states dark red for Republicans. Many are still registered as Democrats. But they are not.

I'm from the deep south, where people have to register to vote. It sounds screwy, but it is true: There are registered Democrats in the south, but they are Republican. My father and stepmother are two. They are Trump supporters and ALWAYS vote Republican. They are registered Democrat just because....their families were, the registered as Dems years ago, and registration doesn't mean anything to them.

The southern "conservative Democrats" were truly Republican.
 
I'm not sure but isn't the title of this thread Sen. Clinton's new campaign theme?
 
blaxshep said:
This tired old argument huh? Yea there was one Nazi that didn't hate the Jews so your argument about the Holocaust is invalid. Liberal BS 101. Argue everything but the context of the debate, it's the source, its your spelling, you mean everyone in the whole group, your guy did it too, .... did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

Wow, I guess there's a lot of conservatives who major in "liberal BS 101" because every time I point out that slave owners were christian and that some famous southern christians defended slavery on christian grounds, I get told that it was christianity that opposed slavery. Could it be that people of the same race, just like people who choose the same name for their faith, can have different opinions that don't necessarily describe everyone?

Can we establish that being black doesn't automatically make you a social parasite and that being white doesn't automatically make you an exploiter of black people? It's not liberal BS to agree that there is some nuance in this debate and broad brushing either side is the first step in being wrong. What I know I'm NOT wrong about, though, is that too often, conservatives have been caught accusing black people of being unusually entitled to welfare, a pittance, while the primary beneficiaries of their property rights dogma are white people who feel entitled to exist in a society that they won't pay for.

Some black people may in fact be given some chump change they don't really deserve but I think far more of our nation's treasure is spent giving "incentives" to people who are already effectively incentivized by greed and snobbery, and the conservatives aren't complaining about that at all. In that way, they insult white people as much as they do black people, by establishing and then ignoring the white half of the problem.
 
D_NATURED said:
Some black people may in fact be given some chump change they don't really deserve but I think far more of our nation's treasure is spent giving "incentives" to people who are already effectively incentivized by greed and snobbery, and the conservatives aren't complaining about that at all. In that way, they insult white people as much as they do black people, by establishing and then ignoring the white half of the problem.
Click to expand...

These incentives you speak of are job creators.

Businesses are given incentives to expand operations in a certain area, an area that they are not currently operating in. By doing so, the politicians in the area can boost the economy by attracting the business to set up in their area, creating jobs. Jobs make people happy, and better off financially. When people have jobs, they can spend more, thus increasing consumption spending which boosts the economy. At the same time, unemployment is reduced.

Spending money directly to the pockets of unemployed people only marginally boosts the economy, but doesn't add much more to it.


Economically speaking, it makes more sense to give incentives to industry than it does to the unemployed.
 
blaxshep said:
This tired old argument huh? Yea there was one Nazi that didn't hate the Jews so your argument about the Holocaust is invalid. Liberal BS 101. Argue everything but the context of the debate, it's the source, its your spelling, you mean everyone in the whole group, your guy did it too, .... did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

Actually, there were a great many Nazis who did not hate Jews. Membership in the party at that time was a prerequisite for millions who wanted to maintain their job, their home, and in some cases even their liberty or their life. Which yields a significant point to the argument here.

Yes, personal initiative counts, but people also find themselves embedded in the system in which they reside, which dictates the sort of life they can expect to a large degree, like it or not. This is even more true today in our complex, globalized economy. It is also more true in the US, where political choice has narrowed in recent years, and progressive voices tend to get shouted down. You can vote for the status quo, or not quite the status quo, but do not upset the business community, or those at the apex of wealth.

Did you vote in a referendum for globalization? For the digital revolution? For automated factories? For immigration policy? Do you sit in at meetings of the Fed, and advise on monetary policy? Do you belong to a union? Did you make your voice heard, and effect change, with your local property taxes, zoning regulations, and public transit policies? All these things, and many more, will effect "all that money" that you may or may not have, and even if you have led a remarkable life, and spoken up in many of these issues, your voice is but one of many. Never the less, you will have to accept the slice of the economic pie such decisions give you, to the extent that you cannot change the results that effect you.

This is a point on which the right wing of politics struggles to understand. There is a great deal of abstraction and subjectivity in who gets what in society, and abstraction is not this group's strong point. Just because you see a wad of money in your hand, it does not mean that you have earned precisely what you deserve, and some magical system has allotted you the most correct and efficient portion of the economy that can be. It just means you have a wad of money in your hand. Here things get dicey, has the uber-right tends to become defensive and angry at thought that some G man is going to take away "their" money.

There is anger today because inequality is at historic levels, due to forces beyond the control of the average citizen, and indeed some of these forces should not be controlled, although they do mandate changing the way we look at work and the distribution of resources in society. I suspect that black guy quoted had a basic intuitive sense of this, although lacked an articulate explanation.
 
sangha said:
Breaking News - There's an idiot in Milwaukee
Click to expand...

Seems like a lot of them actually. Why else would they riot for a dead thug?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Henrin said:
No, it's because they're idiots. They can't grasp that destroying their own community will actually make it harder for them going forward.
Click to expand...

Why can't it be both?
 
sangha said:
You obviously believe that it is sometimes appropriate to ascribe one's person's statements to an entire group, but you have not been clear as to when it is appropriate. So far, all I have is two instances where it's OK to ascribe what one black man says to an entire group

I'm hoping that you can actually explain when it is and is not appropriate to do this. However, I have little faith that will be able to do so
Click to expand...

According to the Democrat play book it is OK when it is someone connected to the Tea Party, The NRA or GOP in general.
 
Caine said:
These incentives you speak of are job creators.

Businesses are given incentives to expand operations in a certain area, an area that they are not currently operating in. By doing so, the politicians in the area can boost the economy by attracting the business to set up in their area, creating jobs. Jobs make people happy, and better off financially. When people have jobs, they can spend more, thus increasing consumption spending which boosts the economy. At the same time, unemployment is reduced.

Spending money directly to the pockets of unemployed people only marginally boosts the economy, but doesn't add much more to it.


Economically speaking, it makes more sense to give incentives to industry than it does to the unemployed.
Click to expand...

Production is driven by demand, demand from people with money. A certain amount of money, to be exact. With too much money, such resources can absent themselves from the economy through savings, or even worse, go to destructive uses in pumping up speculative bubbles. Those with too little, such as welfare recipients, do not have enough to make an effect. The most successful societies historically have been those with a large middle class, those with enough funds to generate new economic activity, but not so much as to cause distortions in the economy. It is exactly this class that is atrophying under right wing policy.

There is no point in giving out "incentives" to business to operate if there is no demand. And when business does operate today, they have every incentive to destroy jobs, not create them. There is far more profit in running an automated factory than one with human workers. Software applications are vastly more profitable than offices packed with workers demanding wages and lunch breaks. And in areas automation or outsourcing hasn't reached (yet), there is every incentive to cut wages and benefits to the bone. Combine an ever tightening job market with extremist right wing spin, and you have a recipe for the low wage, "gig economy" that we are seeing take shape before us today.

The biggest money makers today do not need millions of workers. Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft- are some of the largest entities in the economy today, in terms of profits, and they require only a few thousand workers. The free market, left to itself, tends towards the most profits for the fewest people, and the stats today tell us that this indeed is were we are going.

So you have it almost completely backwards. It makes good economic sense to put money in the hands of the unemployed, and the marginally employed, and to provide a progressive tax system, and other measures, to increase demand and attempt a come back of the middle class.
 
Ganesh said:
Production is driven by demand, demand from people with money. A certain amount of money, to be exact. With too much money, such resources can absent themselves from the economy through savings, or even worse, go to destructive uses in pumping up speculative bubbles. Those with too little, such as welfare recipients, do not have enough to make an effect. The most successful societies historically have been those with a large middle class, those with enough funds to generate new economic activity, but not so much as to cause distortions in the economy. It is exactly this class that is atrophying under right wing policy.

There is no point in giving out "incentives" to business to operate if there is no demand. And when business does operate today, they have every incentive to destroy jobs, not create them. There is far more profit in running an automated factory than one with human workers. Software applications are vastly more profitable than offices packed with workers demanding wages and lunch breaks. And in areas automation or outsourcing hasn't reached (yet), there is every incentive to cut wages and benefits to the bone. Combine an ever tightening job market with extremist right wing spin, and you have a recipe for the low wage, "gig economy" that we are seeing take shape before us today.

The biggest money makers today do not need millions of workers. Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft- are some of the largest entities in the economy today, in terms of profits, and they require only a few thousand workers. The free market, left to itself, tends towards the most profits for the fewest people, and the stats today tell us that this indeed is were we are going.

So you have it almost completely backwards. It makes good economic sense to put money in the hands of the unemployed, and the marginally employed, and to provide a progressive tax system, and other measures, to increase demand and attempt a come back of the middle class.
Click to expand...

By putting money in the hands of the unemployed people for producing nothing, you fail to give incentive for them to actually produce something.
 
Caine said:
By putting money in the hands of the unemployed people for producing nothing, you fail to give incentive for them to actually produce something.
Click to expand...

Thanks for illuminating another problematic aspect of right wing political thought. The sentiment of the right tends to be fear-based, narrow, exclusive, and parochial. This election is a prominent example, with America's allies allegedly cheating and not paying their way, China conspiring up a global warming hoax, rapist and murdering Mexicans, terrorist Muslims, women good for nothing but sex objects, government agents coming for your guns and bibles, and a moderate oponent is the ultimate terror: the Devil herself, up from Hell just to harrase the good ol' boys. How's that for fear?

Your worry that your 5 or 10 cents contribution to the unemployment insurance plan will be wasted by a bunch of lazy n**gers sitting on their porch with a big doobie and a six pack is part and parcel of the same phenomenon. Are there hundreds, thousands, millions, or hundreds of millions ripping off such programs? You don't know, but you do have a lingering fear that the whole thing might just crash down if we are not vigilant. Maybe 47% of the population is sitting on their porch with a six pack...how would you know? Do you even want to know? It's so much easier just to accept a 10 second, feel good soundbite.

What incentive do you think a 30 year old with their degree in management, or computer science, hoping to get married, own a house, etc, has to get on with life? Are they the ones that are going to say, hey! $800/month, for a while anyway, forget life and hand me a beer? How about the single mom, in angst because she cannot buy Christmas presents for the kids, despite a sh*t job as Wal Mart greeter, and a little help from UI? How about the 55 year old former auto worker who hasn't quite payed for his mortagage yet, nor his son's operation, but has "incentive" to try for a job at the 7-11 for $1200/ month, rather than his $800 UI? These are realistic scenarios, not your right wing talking points.

You said yourself that people are happier with a job, and this is true. The vast majority want to feel useful and productive. UI payments allow workers to bridge the gap between jobs (gaps that are getting ever more problematic), without going bankrupt, losing their homes, or other drastic measures that ultimately are negative to the economy at large, as well as personally tragic. They also help to keep up spending and demand, a significant factor in our modern consumer economy. They also (somewhat paradoxically) encourage more risk taking in employment choice, and in job mobility. It makes the decision to move to take up a better or more productive job easier, because if it fails at least there is some modest back-up.

While your worried some lazy bum is going to steal your 10 cents, programs like UI are running and proving themselves as fundamental to a modern, healthy economy, and have been for decades, in the US and all other developed economies.
 
Ganesh said:
Your worry that your 5 or 10 cents contribution to the unemployment insurance plan will be wasted by a bunch of lazy n**gers sitting on their porch with a big doobie and a six pack is part and parcel of the same phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Why are you posting such racist garbage??? And then, trying to attribute it to me on top of that. Please quote me where I've made ANY statements on this topic related to "lazy niggers sitting on their porch". And don't even get into your "mind-reading" liberal bull**** either. No, I don't think like this regardless of what you claim. Its hard to take anything you say seriously when you have to make up such statement and try to pass them off as something I've said, or a view I share.


What incentive do you think a 30 year old with their degree in management, or computer science, hoping to get married, own a house, etc, has to get on with life? Are they the ones that are going to say, hey! $800/month, for a while anyway, forget life and hand me a beer? How about the single mom, in angst because she cannot buy Christmas presents for the kids, despite a sh*t job as Wal Mart greeter, and a little help from UI? How about the 55 year old former auto worker who hasn't quite payed for his mortagage yet, nor his son's operation, but has "incentive" to try for a job at the 7-11 for $1200/ month, rather than his $800 UI? These are realistic scenarios, not your right wing talking points.
Click to expand...
This emotional drivel has nothing to do with the economic discussion.

You said yourself that people are happier with a job, and this is true. The vast majority want to feel useful and productive. UI payments allow workers to bridge the gap between jobs (gaps that are getting ever more problematic), without going bankrupt, losing their homes, or other drastic measures that ultimately are negative to the economy at large, as well as personally tragic. They also help to keep up spending and demand, a significant factor in our modern consumer economy. They also (somewhat paradoxically) encourage more risk taking in employment choice, and in job mobility. It makes the decision to move to take up a better or more productive job easier, because if it fails at least there is some modest back-up.
Click to expand...
You seem to assume that because I don't believe that all incentive programs should be removed from industry and given to beef up unemployment that I somehow think all of unemployment should be defunded. This cannot be furthur from the truth. I believe a good balance is important. These incentive programs help stimulate the economy, while UI also helps, as you stated, bridge the gap.

While your worried some lazy bum is going to steal your 10 cents, programs like UI are running and proving themselves as fundamental to a modern, healthy economy, and have been for decades, in the US and all other developed economies.
Click to expand...

Those are your words... not mine. You own them. Don't try to put your crazy ideas of how you wish I think (so you can then destroy that false narrative in your posts) on me.

Its called a strawman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom