Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Democratics and white voters
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Titus



Joined: 19 May 2012

PostPosted: Fri Sep 07, 2012 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Leon wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Titus wrote:
Quote:
President Barack Obama continues to beat Mitt Romney among African American voters with a staggering 94 percent to 0 percent lead, according to a poll released Tuesday.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80015.html#ixzz25pM7F9Au

We all know why this particular group votes for the party of more free stuff. It is generally in their interests to get free stuff. White voters, on the other hand, are generally the origin of the free stuff. Why would whites vote for the party of free stuff? Please! Take my stuff!

The racialization of American politics is just about complete. The next 50 years will be completely unlike the last.


Well, yeah, I think Blacks are offended that Republicans characterize them as free-loaders. The 'Food-Stamp' President, etc. I mean, overtly racist Party or first Black President? Who will you choose, Black America?


It's interesting how some people look at this situation and say that there is something wrong with the blacks for not voting for Republicans, instead of looking at why Republicans can't get, virtually any, minorities to vote for them. Because all blacks and latino's are poor and on assistance. Because there is no black upper or middle class, right?


The black middle class is almost entirely dependent on AA or direct government jobs. You can find the data. There would be no such thing as a black middle class without government.

Anyway, that aside, blacks/whites/hispanics have different political values. Why can't the Republicans get Vibrants to vote for them? Vibrants don't hold limited government ideas. Limited government is a white thing.

http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-2-demographics-and-american-values/6-4-12-v-34/

That limited government constitution? Yeah, written by WASPs. Why would Jose from Guadalajara give two craps about it? Do you people really believe differently? I don't care what you think. None of us own hedge funds so none of us have any say in the political process. I'd appreciate more honesty though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL..what a load. So, this includes Herman Cain, Steele, etc. and the rest of the Black Conservatives who are in middle class as well, right? They got thier middle class status by AA and the government? Merrill Lynch, Time Warner, Fannie Mae and a host of other Fortune 500 companies had Black CEOs, CFOs, etc. and they all got it by affirmative action and the government? LOL...reduce 40 million of the population accomplishments to be not their own.

Please post any polling data that black (and latino) support for Obama or Dems is based on free stuff? Maybe there is. The assertion was made so back it up with links and stats please.

It seems a problem when Blacks vote in high percentage for the Democratic party. For the record I wish blacks would explore all parties but there are other groups that vote in very high percentage for one party but its not an issue. I wonder who white fundamentalist southerners vote for? I wonder who the military overwhelmingly vote for, especially white military. Gays and the LBGT community vote overwhelmingly for one party. But that's not a problem though, its only a problem when Blacks vote for one party. hahaha

As for voting for free stuff. Corporate welfare costs many times more than social welfare. Corporations have lobbies that keep that stuff going. They encourage their employees and others to vote for their free stuff to keep coming but that's okay though right? Its a problem if (unsubstantiated as it is) if others do? lol.

Its impossible for Obama or any Democrat to elected to national office without white voters. Dems get millions of white voters. How does this fit into the equation? A hundred and fifty years ago it was the Papists (code word for catholics), Jews, southern and eastern europeans that replaced blacks and latinos. They were saying the same EXACT thing and the Know Nothing party in the 1800s became a viable party based on these xenophobic fears.

The sad thing is that some of you on here don't even call people on this stuff.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Titus wrote:

The black middle class is almost entirely dependent on AA or direct government jobs.


Let's not stop there: the modern middle class in itself is largely a political creation. Middle class blacks owe much of their success to government policy, sure, but so do middle class whites on the whole, even if they are one more step removed from the source. The particular policies which support them may be more subtle -- and as such, conducive to the illusion of dignity -- but they are there, and they are effective.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:

As for voting for free stuff. Corporate welfare costs many times more than social welfare. Corporations have lobbies that keep that stuff going. They encourage their employees and others to vote for their free stuff to keep coming but that's okay though right? Its a problem if (unsubstantiated as it is) if others do? lol.


Hey, hey, hey, if a Board of Directors does it, its not welfare, its enterprise! 68% of sons of top 1% earners work for their parents.

Quote:
The researchers found that 68 percent of the sons of top-percentile income earners have at some point by the time they're age 33 taken a job at a firm their father also worked. That's significantly higher than the 55 percent rate for the sons of the second-highest percentile of earners and the 40 percent average for all income levels.


Almost everybody takes handouts. When Romney did it at Bain Capital, its characterized as enterprise. When lower-income Blacks do it, its characterized as welfare.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

...and although a higher percentage of Blacks on welfare than anyone else, in terms of raw numbers, there are more of our fellow Whites on welfare than Blacks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
...and although a higher percentage of Blacks on welfare than anyone else, in terms of raw numbers, there are more of our fellow Whites on welfare than Blacks.

Welfare, both social and corporate, should be cut down close to zero over the next 4 years (along with proportionate cuts in gov't spending and payroll, and taxation). That would help get the economy going again.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not necessarilly VisitorQ. It really depends on distribution.

There is no guarantee that the re-distribution of government largesse would necessarilly go to those who need it to jump start the economy. In fact, it may prove that it would disproportionately go to those who would either consume luxury goods or invest it internationally, creating a negative impact on a large portion of American people, further reducing domestic spending, and increasing the likelihood of foreign investment.

After the fallout of the Great Recession, the focal point of priming the pump, was totally focused on Wall Street, leaving Main Street behind. And, that did not get us very far. It may have stopped the bleeding but not much else.

In my mind, it is evidence that our current economic thinking is getting us nowhere. We need to get more money to main street and get more Main Street people to spend more.

But, I guess it depends on redistribution. If we redivert tax money away from giving it directly to Wall Street and give it to Main Street, Wall Street gets it eventually anyway because where else is Main Street spending it? But, if we give it directly to Wall Street than Wall Street doesn't have much use for Main Street.

Whether it is tax breaks or it is government investments doesn't really matter. It is a redistribution of income than what is happening now.

But, if you think Wall Street is hoarding money now; just wait until they get all their tax money back, too.

It could actually lead to a terrible economic mess if that money is not distributed better.

I think one of the things learned from this mess is that if you try to prime the pump by giving businesses and banks money, it is more likely that they will hoard that money than it is to pump it through the system.

Give that money to Main Street and they will put it in banks and buy consumer goods, pumping the money through the economic system. It is much more likely to lead to a jump start in the economy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the fact that people are actually gullable enough to be surprised that American politics are not racially based says how far we have come in racial tolerance in America.

The fact of the matter we are still a country divided by race whether we want to believe it or not. And, while we have come a long way (seriously - it is much better than it was 20 even 40 and amazingly better than 60 years ago), we still have a long way to go.

And, to those who think it is somehow values, you are kind of missing the point. It is about race.

Getting better? I believe so. Not about race anymore? No, it is still about race.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sun Sep 09, 2012 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter:

I made no mention of "redistributing" wealth. Most of the big corporations pay little tax anyway, and I have no idea what you mean when you say that lowering their taxes would cause them to "hoard" their money more...

All I was saying is that the government should stop favoring corporations with taxpayer-backed handouts (whether subsidies or bailouts). This would force corporations to compete freely in the market place, which requires investment. That means spending money to make money. That is what gets the economy running again. Any company that did otherwise would risk losing out to competitors and going bankrupt, which is how true capitalism is supposed to be (and in the case of some of the companies that depend on government to keep themselves government: if they can't stand on their own feet in a free market system then all I can say is good riddance).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

VisitorQ:

Fair questions. I probably did not express as clearly as I should (quickly typing before class).

1. If we end both corporate and personal welfare and return the unused tax money back to the "people," it will overwelmingly go to the top income earners anyway. So, whether the government redistribute tax money in the form of corporate welfare or whether it just gives a tax break, only differs in distribution.

2. So, whether this would help the economy, in part, depends on how we distribute that money.

3. Now, when it came to fighting the "Great Recession, the response was to bailout banks and insurers (prime the pump). The idea was that they would then start lending again and this would jump start businesses and put people back to work and people would spend money and the economy would recover.

4. But, it did not work that way.

5. Banks and Financial companies sat on the money (hoarded it) and they did not lend it to businesses who did not hire people who did not spend money.

6. So, my other concern is that if we just end corporate welfare, the wealthy elite will just take their money and hoard it just as they have done throughout the Great Recession.

7. If we really want to prime the pump and jump start the economy, we need to give the money directly to Main Street - you know everyday workers. Main Street will spend it or save it but either way that money goes into the economic system and it eventually gets funnelled through the banks, the financial companies and the big businesses.

8. We need to go back to a bottom-up approach to economics. The trickle down theories that have been in vogue for the last 30 or 40 years just have not worked.

9. While I like your idea of ending corporate welfare, I think considering the widening wealth gap over the last 40 years and the damaged current state of the economy, we can't just say okay, lets start over.

10. We need to give everyone a fairer chance and we need to jumpstart the economy by redistributing corporate welfare back to Main Street and then slowly phase out unnecessary social welfare programs, though personally I feel that programs such as social security and medicare cannot be phased out. My guess is welfare to dependent single mothers also cannot be phased out without a very high social cost even if it leads to other problems, which I know very well that it does from what I've read.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Privateer



Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:53 am    Post subject: Re: Democratics and white voters Reply with quote

detonate wrote:
Isn't this easily the more remarkable stat : 95%+ of black voters voted for Obama in '08. Shocked

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html


This is why they've been busy purging the electoral rolls. Voter fraud is apparently a big problem. Because, you know, people are so enthusiastic about voting many vote more than once if you don't stop them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:
VisitorQ:

Fair questions. I probably did not express as clearly as I should (quickly typing before class).

1. If we end both corporate and personal welfare and return the unused tax money back to the "people," it will overwelmingly go to the top income earners anyway. So, whether the government redistribute tax money in the form of corporate welfare or whether it just gives a tax break, only differs in distribution.

This is simply untrue. Most taxation comes from the middle class (i.e. $150k income or less).

Quote:
2. So, whether this would help the economy, in part, depends on how we distribute that money.

The best way by far for that money to be "distributed" is in the free market. Government has no means of effectively allocating that money without distorting the market and causing problems.

Quote:
3. Now, when it came to fighting the "Great Recession, the response was to bailout banks and insurers (prime the pump). The idea was that they would then start lending again and this would jump start businesses and put people back to work and people would spend money and the economy would recover.

4. But, it did not work that way.

5. Banks and Financial companies sat on the money (hoarded it) and they did not lend it to businesses who did not hire people who did not spend money.

You just summarized the fallacy of Keynesian economics. It never works how they say it's going to. This is why the financial system should have been allowed to collapse. Too big to fail = too big to exist. I guess I'm an "extremist" in that regard, but then I don't see the point of waiting for cancer to metastasise when it needs to be cut out. Better to get the pain over and done with so we can move on and have a functioning free market system again (that benefits regular people the most).

Quote:
6. So, my other concern is that if we just end corporate welfare, the wealthy elite will just take their money and hoard it just as they have done throughout the Great Recession.

They can't hoard it. You have to spend money to make money. The only time this isn't true is when the government starts bailing people out. This is the moral hazard you keep hearing about.

Quote:
7. If we really want to prime the pump and jump start the economy, we need to give the money directly to Main Street - you know everyday workers. Main Street will spend it or save it but either way that money goes into the economic system and it eventually gets funnelled through the banks, the financial companies and the big businesses.

This is a flawed approach. Just giving money to people doesn't make them richer. It causes inflation as prices adjust upward to compensate for everyone having more made-up money.

Quote:
8. We need to go back to a bottom-up approach to economics. The trickle down theories that have been in vogue for the last 30 or 40 years just have not worked.

"Bottom up approach"? You must mean free market capitalism. Nothing erodes the market share of monopolies better than competition. It forces everyone to product better products for cheaper, benefiting everyone.

Quote:
9. While I like your idea of ending corporate welfare, I think considering the widening wealth gap over the last 40 years and the damaged current state of the economy, we can't just say okay, lets start over.

Yes we can. The wealth gap was not caused by market forces, or even taxation. It was caused by money creation. Wall Street and the government have a monopoly on money creation (i.e. legalized fraud), which why they have all the money. End this privilege, and the wealth gap will shrink. It's guaranteed. The middle class was built on free market enterprise principles, NOT by Keynesian economic principles or government intervention (despite what some completely ignorant posters on here would have you believe).

Quote:
10. We need to give everyone a fairer chance and we need to jumpstart the economy by redistributing corporate welfare back to Main Street and then slowly phase out unnecessary social welfare programs, though personally I feel that programs such as social security and medicare cannot be phased out. My guess is welfare to dependent single mothers also cannot be phased out without a very high social cost even if it leads to other problems, which I know very well that it does from what I've read.

I agree everyone needs a fairer chance. That means abolishing government dispensed privilege to corporate cronies and insiders. It means reinstating free market principles that force corporations to serve the public, instead of working with big government to dominate the rest of society (at our expense).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unposter wrote:

9. While I like your idea of ending corporate welfare, I think considering the widening wealth gap over the last 40 years and the damaged current state of the economy, we can't just say okay, lets start over.



Yes, we can. If you have a good product or service you will always make money. Btw, no problem with social welfare but where is the equivalent of what Clinton did with social welfare for the corporations? Welfare today is much, much harder to get and stay on since the '90s.
The corporate welfare money is given to companies that don't need it. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth. Not anti business. I'm all for strong, viable and productive american corporations...as long as they earn it.
That money could be better spent for a variety of things. Education. Infrastructure. A number of areas that directly lead to jobs and a better way of life for all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

VisitorQ,

I am kind of curious why you think the middle class pays the most taxes because I'm pretty sure I heard Paul Ryan (no joke) say that the richest 20% overwelmingly pay the most taxes. Do you have a linke? I think if you were right, it would be a very important point.

While I agree (to a certain extent that the free market - if there is a free market - can distribute money better than any government program I have seen to date - my problem is that just giving tax money back would not right right the wrongs of many years of unjust distributions of money.

One of the biggest problems I have with your arguments is that you just say scrap everything and everything will be okay. The problem is 1) we have created such an unequal playing field that the loss of government protection would really hurt too many people; you can't just scrap it; you have to gradually move the system in that direction 2) the economic inequality that we currently have would put some people at too unfair a disadvantage at the start of the new system.

I don't think you really understand Keynsian economics; what the government did was put Keynesian economics on its ear by putting the money into the hands of the wealthy and expecting it to trickle down to the rest of the population. What we saw was a repudiation of trickle down economics, not Keynesian economics.

Of course, just giving people, in of itself, doesn't make them richer, though it could, depending on other factors involved in inflation. On the other hand, it wouldn't hurt, I mean, between that and taking money away from them, I'll take giving money to them anytime.

I mean that between giving the banks money and giving people money, giving people money is more effective in jump starting an economy. After the banks received their bailouts, they just sat on the money; they didn't invest hardly any of it all.

If the people got money, they would spend it, pay off debts, save it banks, start businesses and/or invest it. Either way, the banks and Wall Street eventually get their money. But, just giving it to the banks certainly didn't work.

Non-monopolistic free market capitalism? Sure. It doesn't sound so bad. But, tell me how are we going to get there? It doesn't seem so simple to me. I'm a realist. Tell me a plan and I'd consider it.

VisitorQ wrote, " agree everyone needs a fairer chance. That means abolishing government dispensed privilege to corporate cronies and insiders. It means reinstating free market principles that force corporations to serve the public, instead of working with big government to dominate the rest of society (at our expense)."

Personally, I love it. But, tell me how we get there, because I don't see it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Unposter



Joined: 04 Jun 2006

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sirius Black,

I'm against corporate welfare, at least as I see it being used these days. I am in no way defending the status quo. I think we could have handled the Great Recession better. The U.S. government worried too much about the stock market, banks and the financial companies and not enough about regular people. I think there has been a terrible inbalance in current economic policies that too favor the wealthiest few and we need to make changes.

What I was trying to say is that if the U.S. government took the money that they used on corporate welfare (and if you inlcude the Feds "secret" dealings it could be up to tens of trillions of dollars) back to the people, the economy would have been in much better shape because unlike the banks which hoarded the money, people would have spent, saved and directly invested it.

In a sense, it could have been like the Bush tax breaks, except that instead of it going to the richest 50% (the poorest 50% don't pay Federal taxes), it would go to everyone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 2 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International