If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Detroit Free Press)   Obama tells African Americans that there's no more room for excuses for their own failings   (freep.com) divider line 297
    More: Hero, President Obama, African-Americans, Morehouse College, historically black colleges, Emancipation Proclamation, global workforce, March on Washington, black man  
•       •       •

5005 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 May 2013 at 7:34 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



297 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-20 01:50:53 AM

Biological Ali: What people like this don't realize is that not only do normal people see right through their bullshiat, they actually have even less respect for them than they would for actual overt racists, because those guys are at least up-front about it.


No, I don't think anyone is handing out extra credit to racists for being "up-front about it".
 
2013-05-20 02:04:19 AM

grahamsletter: Oh, not this crap again. Obama does this every year: goes to a room full of black people and scolds them for a media audience of conservative-leaning white people. It's all a huge sham, anyway. Obama is not culturally Black, so he has no more credibility on this than any other random politician, but because he looks black, conservative leaners, both white and black, will eat it up every time.

Does Obama actually think he's doing any good, or is this just what he believes (that Black people need to stop whining and start working, which hey, guess what, they already are), or is this his way to get some more political capital to distract people from his non-performance in things that actually matter?


Oh? Try living around Detroit.
 
2013-05-20 02:12:15 AM
i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-05-20 02:16:10 AM

gilgigamesh: I think its obvious that today, the black community in America is its own worst enemy. Its a self-perpetuating cycle of broken, fatherless families, poverty, and lack of education.

At the same time, you have to acknowledge how and why that cycle started.


You put some dirty clothes, detergent, and money into the machine, and select the "Colors" cycle.
Don't overload the machine or the (bible) belt will break.
 
2013-05-20 02:22:39 AM

Summercat: My head assplode.


Why? You do know you can admire the person as a person yet still disagree with their politics and public policies right? Conversely you can also dislike the person as a person but agree with their politics. Take Newt Gingrich or Charlie Rangel for example. There are plenty of people in their respective parties that think that they are pretty scummy as people in their personal lives but agree with their politics and public policies. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive by any means. Rational people can separate the two.
 
2013-05-20 02:40:21 AM

sendtodave: Infernalist: But, have we managed to bridge the difference and say honestly that the average black man has the same chances of success as the average white man?  Hells to the no.

If you compare the average black person to the average white person, there is a large gap.

If you compare the average poor black person to the average poor white person, there is a smaller gap.

Poor white trash don't have high chances of success, either.  Or poor anyone, really.


My experience is that poor people as a whole are only interested in not being poor if they can continue to not do anything useful while getting out of being poor.
 
2013-05-20 02:43:04 AM

A Dark Evil Omen: ITT: Wealthy white people who know what poor black people need and what their problem is.


I'll have you know that there are also poor white people, from generations of poor white people, who absolutely know a good portion of what "their problem" is. It's our problem too. Hvae you never been to Appalachia? The rust belt? Any generic Meth City, USA? It's the same f*cking ghetto, just with lots more land.

Granted, poor white trash don't face the same kind of discrimination as poor black people. But if you're holding a job interview, are you going to hire the hairy-shouldered, rub-mouthed, missing a toof, wearin' a sleeveless rasslin' t-shirt, talkin' like the love child of Boomhower and Larry the Cable Guy, greasy-haired, John Deere hat-wearin' meth-mouth, or are you going to hire the black kid?

We have the same legacy of criminal behavior, the same legacy of broken, dysfunctional families, the same dependence on welfare and food stamps, and the same disdain for education. Don't believe me? Come on down sometime. I'll take you on a tour, then we'll go have a drink or six at a local hillbilly bar. This here is former coal country, and we have the same disease as Hazard County, Butcher Holler, Harlan, and every other semi-famous poverty-stricken town you've ever seen on TV.

I always wondered if people from the rest of the country watch Justified with the same wonder and horror as I watch The Wire. To me, it looks normal, but I know it's not supposed to.
 
2013-05-20 02:50:53 AM

ekdikeo4: My experience is that poor people as a whole are only interested in not being poor if they can continue to not do anything useful while getting out of being poor.


Your experience is a registered Republican.
 
2013-05-20 03:08:24 AM

ekdikeo4: sendtodave: Infernalist: But, have we managed to bridge the difference and say honestly that the average black man has the same chances of success as the average white man?  Hells to the no.

If you compare the average black person to the average white person, there is a large gap.

If you compare the average poor black person to the average poor white person, there is a smaller gap.

Poor white trash don't have high chances of success, either.  Or poor anyone, really.

My experience is that poor people as a whole are only interested in not being poor if they can continue to not do anything useful while getting out of being poor.


Your experience sucks. Or perhaps it's your empathy, I suppose. I struggle with that, too. I see poor white trash living in the HUD apartment complexes for very close to free, and pissing their meager dollars away on spoilers and fart mufflers. They all seem to be able to afford personalised plates on their less than 10 year old cars. They all seem to order pizza or get McDonalds daily. Their numerous and filthy children, who haven't seen their Diddy since he done gone to jail or rundoft with that whore, are running around supervised only by their need to stay close the the Mountain Dew dispensing refrigerator. They are constantly going into hock with Rent-a-Center for flat screen TV's, and payday loan stores for cash for baby formula, because they can't be arsed to make it to the WIC appointments to get more coupons for free damned food. They spend all day doing f*ck all, except for those in the drug business, who keep getting all those free bennies while taking in black market cash. Goddamn, is it frustrating. How the f*ck can these people live what seems to be a carefree life, when I have to struggle to make more than $8/hr? The only way I "escaped" poverty was by a) marrying a teacher, who makes less than $40k, b) the good fortune to run across a foreclosure home cheap at just the right time, c) the good fortune to have family in the construction trades who could help me renovate said home, and d) the good fortune to be born with a natural talent for math, logic, and spreadsheet manipulation so I didn't piss my money away (I damned sure wasn't taught any of that shiat at my worthless-ass schools).

But I know the truth. The truth isn't that they're mooching off the system. It's that they looked at the world, realized there was no place for them, and said "f*ck it". A life time of disadvantages, and usually one or two poor decisions, have doomed them to a cycle of poverty for the rest of their lives. Why the hell should they bust their collective humps for no real reward?

Let's get serious for a moment. You want to fix generational poverty? You want to end the dependence on social services? GODDAMN PRO-RATE THEM. It should never, under any circumstances, cost you money to go to work. But it does. If you work a 30 hr/wk job at $8/hr, you lose most, if not all, government benefits. Now try to live on $1100 a month. Also, you've lost your medical card, so if you or anyone else in the family gets sick, you're farked. If your car breaks down, you're farked. Can't ride the bus. No busses around here. So, why the hell try?
 
2013-05-20 03:13:15 AM

TopoGigo: It should never, under any circumstances, cost you money to go to work.


Does that go for everyone, or just poor blacks? Regular people pay for gas, or the subway, or the bus.
 
2013-05-20 03:16:07 AM

robohobo: Does that go for everyone, or just poor blacks? Regular people pay for gas, or the subway, or the bus.


Poor blacks aren't "regular people"?
 
2013-05-20 03:27:45 AM

robohobo: TopoGigo: It should never, under any circumstances, cost you money to go to work.

Does that go for everyone, or just poor blacks? Regular people pay for gas, or the subway, or the bus.


Don't be obtuse. If you read my both whole posts rather than quote-mining me, you'd see that a) I was clearly talking about the poor white trash where I live, and b) I was explicit that you lose far more money in benefits than you gain by getting a job. If you don't understand what prorate means, you could look it up on the very piece of equipment you're using to spout drivel. If you don't understand how prorating benefits would apply to the problem of it costing money to get a job, you should spend your time trying to figure out how to use your internet device to commit suicide in a creative, FARK-worthy manner.
 
2013-05-20 03:36:38 AM

TopoGigo: robohobo: TopoGigo: It should never, under any circumstances, cost you money to go to work.

Does that go for everyone, or just poor blacks? Regular people pay for gas, or the subway, or the bus.

Don't be obtuse. If you read my both whole posts rather than quote-mining me, you'd see that a) I was clearly talking about the poor white trash where I live, and b) I was explicit that you lose far more money in benefits than you gain by getting a job. If you don't understand what prorate means, you could look it up on the very piece of equipment you're using to spout drivel. If you don't understand how prorating benefits would apply to the problem of it costing money to get a job, you should spend your time trying to figure out how to use your internet device to commit suicide in a creative, FARK-worthy manner.


Oh, I was being obtuse. Throwing more of our money at the problem won't help. Most people, on both sides of the political fence, don't really give a shiat about the problem, not really. And that's half of it. The other half is the people we're talking about either seem to glorfy their lifestyles, blame it on others, wallow in it, or are otherwise apathetic.This is America, afterall.
 
2013-05-20 03:37:20 AM

ekdikeo4: sendtodave: Infernalist: But, have we managed to bridge the difference and say honestly that the average black man has the same chances of success as the average white man?  Hells to the no.

If you compare the average black person to the average white person, there is a large gap.

If you compare the average poor black person to the average poor white person, there is a smaller gap.

Poor white trash don't have high chances of success, either.  Or poor anyone, really.

My experience is that poor people as a whole are only interested in not being poor if they can continue to not do anything useful while getting out of being poor.


Do you consider the people that cook your meals, cut your lawn, drive your cars (and guard you while you sleep) useful?
 
2013-05-20 03:47:58 AM
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/finally-proof-that-mon e y-buys-happiness-sort-of

First, it is important to point out they did not plot income dollar-for-dollar against happiness measures in the above graphs. Rather, they used a logarithmic scale, with income doubling at each interval. In other words, with that horizontal axis stretched out, the graphs would show happiness increasing more quickly for poorer countries and poorer people than for those on the richer end of the spectrum.

Or, put even more simply, an extra dollar improves well-being for someone in poverty far more than it will help a Fortune 500 CEO. That supports the political argument for promoting income redistribution - more money appears to do more good for people who are poor.


Money is just a medium of exchange, and wealth is just the accumulation of that over and above that one needs.

And it's obvious that it does not need to be tied to labor, since those with the most wealth tend to labor the least.

...

Guaranteed basic income as a solution?
 
2013-05-20 03:56:34 AM

sendtodave: Or, put even more simply, an extra dollar improves well-being for someone in poverty far more than it will help a Fortune 500 CEO. That supports the political argument for promoting income redistribution - more money appears to do more good for people who are poor.


Most economists and political scientists would agree that something that makes a lot of people happy for a short time isn't usually the best way to run a country.  If you took all the money from the top 1% and redistributed it to everyone else, how far so you think it would go?  Maybe a couple thousand dollars each?  How much difference would that make, and at what expense?

sendtodave: And it's obvious that it does not need to be tied to labor, since those with the most wealth tend to labor the least.


I guess it depends on how you define labor, but those with the least wealth probably labor less than the wealthiest.  Unless you're talking about, you know, going into labor.
 
2013-05-20 03:56:35 AM

robohobo: TopoGigo: robohobo: TopoGigo: It should never, under any circumstances, cost you money to go to work.

Does that go for everyone, or just poor blacks? Regular people pay for gas, or the subway, or the bus.

Don't be obtuse. If you read my both whole posts rather than quote-mining me, you'd see that a) I was clearly talking about the poor white trash where I live, and b) I was explicit that you lose far more money in benefits than you gain by getting a job. If you don't understand what prorate means, you could look it up on the very piece of equipment you're using to spout drivel. If you don't understand how prorating benefits would apply to the problem of it costing money to get a job, you should spend your time trying to figure out how to use your internet device to commit suicide in a creative, FARK-worthy manner.

Oh, I was being obtuse. Throwing more of our money at the problem won't help. Most people, on both sides of the political fence, don't really give a shiat about the problem, not really. And that's half of it. The other half is the people we're talking about either seem to glorfy their lifestyles, blame it on others, wallow in it, or are otherwise apathetic.This is America, afterall.


Well, you were either being obtuse, are a poor reader, or made a poor attempt at a joke. Your statement neatly addressed a point I didn't make.

Regardless, the bolded part there? That's all true. I can't argue with that at all. What I can argue with is the statement before that. It's a classic example of penny-wise, pound-foolish. If you get HUD housing, subsidized utilities, a medical card, food stamps, and WIC, which is not uncommon around where I live, you will absolutely lose a lot of money taking a job at McDonalds. And that's if nothing bad happens, like an illness, a speeding ticket, car troubles, etc. A couple hundred dollars in car repairs or a speeding ticket or driving without insurance can literally mean disaster for the working poor. So, what moron gets a damn job? Would you? I'd like to think I would, but if I'm honest with myself, I know I wouldn't.

So, what's better? To pay 100% of these benefits to people for potentially the rest of their lives, or to pay 50% or 25% of these benefits to the working poor until they get ahead enough in life to get better jobs? MAKE IT PAY TO WORK. If I get a job making $300/wk, I should lose only $1000/mo in benefits. That's an increase in money of $200 every month, most of which will be spent in gas, car maintenance, lunch, and clothing. Keep prorating it, constantly reducing benefits by slightly less than the income increases, until they disappear. I guaran-goddamn-tee you that you'll see a whole lot of people suddenly getting jobs, at least until the jobs are all taken.
 
2013-05-20 03:56:46 AM

TopoGigo: robohobo: TopoGigo: It should never, under any circumstances, cost you money to go to work.

Does that go for everyone, or just poor blacks? Regular people pay for gas, or the subway, or the bus.

Don't be obtuse. If you read my both whole posts rather than quote-mining me, you'd see that a) I was clearly talking about the poor white trash where I live, and b) I was explicit that you lose far more money in benefits than you gain by getting a job. If you don't understand what prorate means, you could look it up on the very piece of equipment you're using to spout drivel. If you don't understand how prorating benefits would apply to the problem of it costing money to get a job, you should spend your time trying to figure out how to use your internet device to commit suicide in a creative, FARK-worthy manner.


Nobody cares about white trash because they're white and we all know that white people are never discriminated against. If they're poor, it's because they're stupid or rednecks or meth-heads or inbred; and they're all mean racist KKKers, every last one, and for no other reason than they're just too stupid to learn otherwise. Certainly not because wealthy educated whites discriminate against them. Certainly NOT.

/My great-granddaddy was a ridgerunner in 1863.
//Now the Virginia Blairs don't talk to us any more.
 
2013-05-20 04:02:15 AM

sendtodave: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/finally-proof-that-mon e y-buys-happiness-sort-of

First, it is important to point out they did not plot income dollar-for-dollar against happiness measures in the above graphs. Rather, they used a logarithmic scale, with income doubling at each interval. In other words, with that horizontal axis stretched out, the graphs would show happiness increasing more quickly for poorer countries and poorer people than for those on the richer end of the spectrum.

Or, put even more simply, an extra dollar improves well-being for someone in poverty far more than it will help a Fortune 500 CEO. That supports the political argument for promoting income redistribution - more money appears to do more good for people who are poor.

Money is just a medium of exchange, and wealth is just the accumulation of that over and above that one needs.

And it's obvious that it does not need to be tied to labor, since those with the most wealth tend to labor the least.

...

Guaranteed basic income as a solution?


Some day we'll wake up and find that we only have useful jobs for a small percentage of people. We're not even that far away; mechanization and efficiency keep reducing the need for human labor. What in the holy living fark are we going to do then? Are we going to let people starve? Are we going to create a perpetual underclass of servants who all live in the downstairs part of the homes of the wealthy, like Victorian England? Will we structure the world so that everyone retires at 30? Or will we guarantee a minimum income for everyone? We really need to start thinking about this soon. If you count disability, long term unemployment, and short term unemployment, you're at something like 20% right now. How long until that number approaches 50%? 75%? 90%?
 
2013-05-20 04:05:07 AM
The greatest trick the media ever played on America was confusing class issues with race issues.

And so it goes.
 
2013-05-20 04:07:05 AM

Yes please: sendtodave: Or, put even more simply, an extra dollar improves well-being for someone in poverty far more than it will help a Fortune 500 CEO. That supports the political argument for promoting income redistribution - more money appears to do more good for people who are poor.

Most economists and political scientists would agree that something that makes a lot of people happy for a short time isn't usually the best way to run a country.  If you took all the money from the top 1% and redistributed it to everyone else, how far so you think it would go?  Maybe a couple thousand dollars each?  How much difference would that make, and at what expense?

sendtodave: And it's obvious that it does not need to be tied to labor, since those with the most wealth tend to labor the least.

I guess it depends on how you define labor, but those with the least wealth probably labor less than the wealthiest.  Unless you're talking about, you know, going into labor.


The article said that, not me.  I'd scrap the whole damned system if I could.  I wouldn't take from the rich and give to the poor, I'd obliterate the very concepts.

But, working within capitalism?  Whatever allows everyone to get past that point of struggling to make ends meet, past eh business of worrying and scraping, and on the business of living.

We have an investor class that makes more than anyone else.  I dunno, give everyone in the country shares in US companies, how's that?

I did the math a while back; it's probably still accurate enough.  Assume your salary is $50,000 per year.  Waaay more than the poor make in the US.

If you had invested $50k in google when it went IPO, you would have made, approximately, $50k per year.  And you would pay less in taxes!

Capitalism favors the rich (duh).  Should it?

And I'd define "labor" as what bosses hire workers to do.
 
2013-05-20 04:09:27 AM

Gyrfalcon: TopoGigo: robohobo: TopoGigo:

<snip>

Nobody cares about white trash because they're white and we all know that white people are never discriminated against. If they're poor, it's because they're stupid or rednecks or meth-heads or inbred; and they're all mean racist KKKers, every last one, and for no other reason than they're just too stupid to learn otherwise. Certainly not because wealthy educated whites discriminate against them. Certainly NOT.

/My great-granddaddy was a ridgerunner in 1863.
//Now the Virginia Blairs don't talk to us any more.


***DISCLAIMER***
I don't want to sound like an idiot college-aged "anarchist" anti-corporate punk rocker here. Please forgive me as I descend into madness for a second.

The moneyed elites in this country love, I mean LOVE, when we think like this. Black people are discriminated against. Mexicans are discriminated against. Hillbillies are discriminated against. Every oppressed minority does their damnedest to oppress the others. Meanwhile, we're all so distracted by our tribalism and xenophobia that we fail to notice...if your family has been poor for more than two generations, you have almost no chance to succeed in life. The people in power run a rigged game, and all of our pockets are mysteriously getting lighter while our backs are turned. Treat politics just like you treat a carnie barker. If you gawk like a rube, the roustabouts will pick your pockets.

/Paranoid socialist mode OFF
 
2013-05-20 04:09:30 AM

TopoGigo: What in the holy living fark are we going to do then? Are we going to let people starve? Are we going to create a perpetual underclass of servants who all live in the downstairs part of the homes of the wealthy, like Victorian England? Will we structure the world so that everyone retires at 30? Or will we guarantee a minimum income for everyone?


I guess it depends on who is in charge.

Oh, it's the wealthy businessmen who are in charge?  I see.

...

I'm going with "Victorian England."
 
2013-05-20 04:10:19 AM

quatchi: The greatest trick the media ever played on America was confusing class issues with race issues.

And so it goes.


I wish I could "smart" this twice.
 
2013-05-20 04:13:54 AM

TopoGigo: sendtodave: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/29/finally-proof-that-mon e y-buys-happiness-sort-of

First, it is important to point out they did not plot income dollar-for-dollar against happiness measures in the above graphs. Rather, they used a logarithmic scale, with income doubling at each interval. In other words, with that horizontal axis stretched out, the graphs would show happiness increasing more quickly for poorer countries and poorer people than for those on the richer end of the spectrum.

Or, put even more simply, an extra dollar improves well-being for someone in poverty far more than it will help a Fortune 500 CEO. That supports the political argument for promoting income redistribution - more money appears to do more good for people who are poor.

Money is just a medium of exchange, and wealth is just the accumulation of that over and above that one needs.

And it's obvious that it does not need to be tied to labor, since those with the most wealth tend to labor the least.

...

Guaranteed basic income as a solution?

Some day we'll wake up and find that we only have useful jobs for a small percentage of people. We're not even that far away; mechanization and efficiency keep reducing the need for human labor. What in the holy living fark are we going to do then? Are we going to let people starve? Are we going to create a perpetual underclass of servants who all live in the downstairs part of the homes of the wealthy, like Victorian England? Will we structure the world so that everyone retires at 30? Or will we guarantee a minimum income for everyone? We really need to start thinking about this soon. If you count disability, long term unemployment, and short term unemployment, you're at something like 20% right now. How long until that number approaches 50%? 75%? 90%?


Couple that with the birth rate of blacks being almost twice as high as whites, and hispanics a bit higher, and we're looking at a clusterfark of people needing handouts. It's a cultural issue. No one can solve another culture's problem. Making people with money subsidize  the lifestyles of another isn't the answer. We have waaaay to many people, not enough work, and probably. not enough time.
 
2013-05-20 04:17:13 AM
Or, Apple.

i.imgur.com

So, again, how's this:  Want to do business as a multinational in the US?  Sell your product and become rich?  Great.  Everyone gets stock.

Kinda like how those rugged bootstrappy people up in Alaska get a few grand every year from the oil companies.
 
2013-05-20 04:19:32 AM

robohobo: Couple that with the birth rate of blacks being almost twice as high as whites, and hispanics a bit higher, and we're looking at a clusterfark of people needing handouts. It's a cultural issue. No one can solve another culture's problem. Making people with money subsidize  the lifestyles of another isn't the answer. We have waaaay to many people, not enough work, and probably. not enough time.


That's your solution?  "We need less poor people?"

Actually, no, that's not even a solution.  That blaming people for being born poor.

Must be a just world you live in.
 
2013-05-20 04:25:29 AM

robohobo: Couple that with the birth rate of blacks being almost twice as high as whites, and hispanics a bit higher, and we're looking at a clusterfark of people needing handouts. It's a cultural issue. No one can solve another culture's problem. Making people with money subsidize  the lifestyles of another isn't the answer. We have waaaay to many people, not enough work, and probably. not enough time.


Look at the racial breakdown  birth rates of unmarried women below the poverty line and the results are even more striking (and alarming, if you're the type of person who allows himself to admit to being alarmed by that sort of thing).  There are obviously a ton of different factors that go into it, but "culture of acceptance" is probably number one, and it's the one that epidemiologists can't fix.
 
2013-05-20 04:27:53 AM

robohobo: Couple that with the birth rate of blacks being almost twice as high as whites, and hispanics a bit higher,

 Regular people
 
2013-05-20 04:28:49 AM

sendtodave: robohobo: Couple that with the birth rate of blacks being almost twice as high as whites, and hispanics a bit higher, and we're looking at a clusterfark of people needing handouts. It's a cultural issue. No one can solve another culture's problem. Making people with money subsidize  the lifestyles of another isn't the answer. We have waaaay to many people, not enough work, and probably. not enough time.

That's your solution?  "We need less poor people?"

Actually, no, that's not even a solution.  That blaming people for being born poor.

Must be a just world you live in.


Not at all. I grew up poor. I  knew a lot of people who ended up taking jobs they claimed made them happy or 'fulfilled' them, yet neither was true. They did what they wanted to do and damned the consequences. They complain about the poor pay, and biatch about societynot properly valuing what they do. Art is not a real job. Philosophy and social science is not a real job. Working retail so you can have a lot of free time is not a real job. Sure, it's nice and requires nothing, but it's not a real job. I took work that I find incredibly boring, pays extremely well, yet doesn't require 20 hours a day. There's a balance. My free time makes me happy and fulfilled. Just because one likes what they do shouldn't mean it pays all their bills and affords them every luxury they want.
 
2013-05-20 04:29:33 AM

sendtodave: google


Call it $100 per share at IPO.  Worth $900 now.

Cato says that we spend $20K per year per poor person on "fighting poverty."  No idea how accurate that is, but $20K is a nice number.

No withdrawals?  About $180K in eight years.

We love capitalism!  Our government should invest for us.  All of us.
 
2013-05-20 04:30:25 AM

robohobo: Couple that with the birth rate of blacks being almost twice as high as whites, and hispanics a bit higher, and we're looking at a clusterfark of people needing handouts. It's a cultural issue. No one can solve another culture's problem. Making people with money subsidize the lifestyles of another isn't the answer. We have waaaay to many people, not enough work, and probably. not enough time.


Now control that for income and education over three generations, then filter by geography. I'm willing to bet that a good bit of that disparity vanishes in a puff of smoke.

Here's the secret: it has nothing to do with race.* Our cities are failing, and the generationally poor are f*cked. It so happens, mostly because of Jim Crow and segregation, that black people have more generational poverty, less access to education, and disproportionally live in cities. It also so happens that many recent immigrants are generationally poor and poorly educated. Stop looking at race, start looking at class. Also, stop being a racist and/or a troll.

*No, I'm not saying that racism is dead. Institutional racism is almost dead, with the very notable exceptions of the legal system and the finance sector of the economy. I am saying that it plays a far smaller role than institutional classism.
 
2013-05-20 04:31:26 AM

robohobo: sendtodave: robohobo: Couple that with the birth rate of blacks being almost twice as high as whites, and hispanics a bit higher, and we're looking at a clusterfark of people needing handouts. It's a cultural issue. No one can solve another culture's problem. Making people with money subsidize  the lifestyles of another isn't the answer. We have waaaay to many people, not enough work, and probably. not enough time.

That's your solution?  "We need less poor people?"

Actually, no, that's not even a solution.  That blaming people for being born poor.

Must be a just world you live in.

Not at all. I grew up poor. I  knew a lot of people who ended up taking jobs they claimed made them happy or 'fulfilled' them, yet neither was true. They did what they wanted to do and damned the consequences. They complain about the poor pay, and biatch about societynot properly valuing what they do. Art is not a real job. Philosophy and social science is not a real job. Working retail so you can have a lot of free time is not a real job. Sure, it's nice and requires nothing, but it's not a real job. I took work that I find incredibly boring, pays extremely well, yet doesn't require 20 hours a day. There's a balance. My free time makes me happy and fulfilled. Just because one likes what they do shouldn't mean it pays all their bills and affords them every luxury they want.


That's a whole 'nother thing.

"Last place aversion."

But you were talking about how minorities have too many kids or something?
 
2013-05-20 04:32:52 AM

robohobo: sendtodave: robohobo: Couple that with the birth rate of blacks being almost twice as high as whites, and hispanics a bit higher, and we're looking at a clusterfark of people needing handouts. It's a cultural issue. No one can solve another culture's problem. Making people with money subsidize  the lifestyles of another isn't the answer. We have waaaay to many people, not enough work, and probably. not enough time.

That's your solution?  "We need less poor people?"

Actually, no, that's not even a solution.  That blaming people for being born poor.

Must be a just world you live in.

Not at all. I grew up poor. I  knew a lot of people who ended up taking jobs they claimed made them happy or 'fulfilled' them, yet neither was true. They did what they wanted to do and damned the consequences. They complain about the poor pay, and biatch about societynot properly valuing what they do. Art is not a real job. Philosophy and social science is not a real job. Working retail so you can have a lot of free time is not a real job. Sure, it's nice and requires nothing, but it's not a real job. I took work that I find incredibly boring, pays extremely well, yet doesn't require 20 hours a day. There's a balance. My free time makes me happy and fulfilled. Just because one likes what they do shouldn't mean it pays all their bills and affords them every luxury they want.


Fortunately, there are lots of jobs just like that lying about for everyone, if only they'd give up their hopes and dreams in exchange for a nice income for an honest day's work. Oh, wait.
 
2013-05-20 04:33:23 AM

TopoGigo: Institutional racism is almost dead, with the very notable exceptions of the legal system and the finance sector of the economy.


That always confused me.  The legal system is supposed to be the most blind to color (or anything).

And yet, it seems to be our most biased branch of government.
 
2013-05-20 04:35:32 AM

robohobo: Art is not a real job. Philosophy and social science is not a real job. Working retail so you can have a lot of free time is not a real job.


You grew up poor surrounded by artists, philosophers, social scientists, and people working retail(because of all the free time)?

wow.
 
2013-05-20 04:37:23 AM

sendtodave: robohobo: sendtodave: robohobo: Couple that with the birth rate of blacks being almost twice as high as whites, and hispanics a bit higher, and we're looking at a clusterfark of people needing handouts. It's a cultural issue. No one can solve another culture's problem. Making people with money subsidize  the lifestyles of another isn't the answer. We have waaaay to many people, not enough work, and probably. not enough time.

That's your solution?  "We need less poor people?"

Actually, no, that's not even a solution.  That blaming people for being born poor.

Must be a just world you live in.

Not at all. I grew up poor. I  knew a lot of people who ended up taking jobs they claimed made them happy or 'fulfilled' them, yet neither was true. They did what they wanted to do and damned the consequences. They complain about the poor pay, and biatch about societynot properly valuing what they do. Art is not a real job. Philosophy and social science is not a real job. Working retail so you can have a lot of free time is not a real job. Sure, it's nice and requires nothing, but it's not a real job. I took work that I find incredibly boring, pays extremely well, yet doesn't require 20 hours a day. There's a balance. My free time makes me happy and fulfilled. Just because one likes what they do shouldn't mean it pays all their bills and affords them every luxury they want.

That's a whole 'nother thing.

"Last place aversion."

But you were talking about how minorities have too many kids or something?


Minorities are having too many children. Do you dispute the cdc? Children are expensive. Some groups of people have more than they can afford, requiring others to pay for them. Contributing to the problem. It's almost like they're tossing wood on the fire.
 
2013-05-20 04:38:57 AM

log_jammin: robohobo: Art is not a real job. Philosophy and social science is not a real job. Working retail so you can have a lot of free time is not a real job.

You grew up poor surrounded by artists, philosophers, social scientists, and people working retail(because of all the free timeunder a bridge with your family of trolls?

wow.


FTFY
 
2013-05-20 04:40:55 AM
"So yes, go get that law degree. But if you do, ask yourself if the only option is to defend the rich and powerful, like I do"

FTFY, Mr President.
 
2013-05-20 04:41:59 AM

TopoGigo: FTFY


It would appear so.
 
2013-05-20 04:43:26 AM

robohobo: Do you dispute the cdc?


I dispute that the data is useful. I dispute that we should use the measurements of that study to support any statements, because skin color is the least useful data point one could choose to measure.
 
2013-05-20 04:44:09 AM

sendtodave: sendtodave: google

Call it $100 per share at IPO.  Worth $900 now.

Cato says that we spend $20K per year per poor person on "fighting poverty."  No idea how accurate that is, but $20K is a nice number.

No withdrawals?  About $180K in eight years.

We love capitalism!  Our government should invest for us.  All of us.


While yours is an interesting idea, it's so deeply flawed on so many levels that it's almost comical.  Give someone in poverty $500 in stock, and they'll turn right around and sell it to whoever is willing to buy it.  Just steal the money from the rich and eliminate brokerage fees.  I suppose you could impose a one year no-sell clause, and in that time they'd either starve to death or need additional subsidy.  But who are you to tell them what they can or can't do with "their" money?  I think we've heard that one before.  And even if you could work around those issues, there's still the problem that most stocks don't do what Apple does, so the vast majority of people's $500 at the start of the year will turn into $505 or less at the end.  Probably less, if smart investors realize there are millions of otherwise poor people holding stock they'll be willing to sell for the price of a warm meal.
 
2013-05-20 04:45:29 AM

sendtodave: TopoGigo: Institutional racism is almost dead, with the very notable exceptions of the legal system and the finance sector of the economy.

That always confused me.  The legal system is supposed to be the most blind to color (or anything).

And yet, it seems to be our most biased branch of government.


Oh, it doesn't confuse me in the least. It depresses me, but it doesn't confuse or surprise me. Of course, there's a fair amount of classism mixed in there, too, but at least in the legal system, the racism weighs more heavily.
 
2013-05-20 04:46:39 AM

Yes please: sendtodave: sendtodave: google

Call it $100 per share at IPO.  Worth $900 now.

Cato says that we spend $20K per year per poor person on "fighting poverty."  No idea how accurate that is, but $20K is a nice number.

No withdrawals?  About $180K in eight years.

We love capitalism!  Our government should invest for us.  All of us.

While yours is an interesting idea, it's so deeply flawed on so many levels that it's almost comical.  Give someone in poverty $500 in stock, and they'll turn right around and sell it to whoever is willing to buy it.  Just steal the money from the rich and eliminate brokerage fees.  I suppose you could impose a one year no-sell clause, and in that time they'd either starve to death or need additional subsidy.  But who are you to tell them what they can or can't do with "their" money?  I think we've heard that one before.  And even if you could work around those issues, there's still the problem that most stocks don't do what Apple does, so the vast majority of people's $500 at the start of the year will turn into $505 or less at the end.  Probably less, if smart investors realize there are millions of otherwise poor people holding stock they'll be willing to sell for the price of a warm meal.


Once again, the sandwich-heavy portfolio pays off for the hungry investor.
 
2013-05-20 04:48:09 AM

Radioactive Ass: Summercat: My head assplode.

Why? You do know you can admire the person as a person yet still disagree with their politics and public policies right? Conversely you can also dislike the person as a person but agree with their politics. Take Newt Gingrich or Charlie Rangel for example. There are plenty of people in their respective parties that think that they are pretty scummy as people in their personal lives but agree with their politics and public policies. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive by any means. Rational people can separate the two.


TPOC, however, does not come accross as rational at any given point. It'd be like Bachman suddenly saying that Obamacare is a wonderful thing.
 
2013-05-20 04:56:32 AM

TopoGigo: robohobo: Do you dispute the cdc?

I dispute that the data is useful. I dispute that we should use the measurements of that study to support any statements, because skin color is the least useful data point one could choose to measure.


Skin color isn't a data point.  It's a variable, and it's important because it's the variable most closely related to culture you can identify with the available data.  Until they start including parents' income on birth certificates or make "white trash" its own checkbox, that information is harder to come by.
 
2013-05-20 04:56:33 AM

Yes please: While yours is an interesting idea, it's so deeply flawed on so many levels that it's almost comical.  Give someone in poverty $500 in stock, and they'll turn right around and sell it to whoever is willing to buy it.  Just steal the money from the rich and eliminate brokerage fees.  I suppose you could impose a one year no-sell clause, and in that time they'd either starve to death or need additional subsidy.  But who are you to tell them what they can or can't do with "their" money?  I think we've heard that one before.  And even if you could work around those issues, there's still the problem that most stocks don't do what Apple does, so the vast majority of people's $500 at the start of the year will turn into $505 or less at the end.  Probably less, if smart investors realize there are millions of otherwise poor people holding stock they'll be willing to sell for the price of a warm meal.


Oh, the poor people wouldn't control the stocks, the government would.  Or, the banks.  Kinda like how everyone gets insurance with Obamacare, and the private sector reaps the rewards of a very large, forced pool.

It's probably unworkable.  But we already rely in the stock market to fund our retirements, why not just... start earlier?  With the companies that do business, or the government, seeding it.

And how much would the US government need to set aside to invest, per person, to give everyone a basic income?

A guess a more rational question is "why doesn't our government invest in companies and try to turn profit at all?"
 
2013-05-20 04:59:35 AM

TopoGigo: Oh, it doesn't confuse me in the least. It depresses me, but it doesn't confuse or surprise me. Of course, there's a fair amount of classism mixed in there, too, but at least in the legal system, the racism weighs more heavily.


Racism, classism, sexism (both ways).

I dunno, for me to not be confused, I'd have to stop believing in the ideal of a fair judiciary, which would make me also depressed.  Did we just not design it correctly?
 
2013-05-20 05:03:49 AM

Yes please: TopoGigo: robohobo: Do you dispute the cdc?

I dispute that the data is useful. I dispute that we should use the measurements of that study to support any statements, because skin color is the least useful data point one could choose to measure.

Skin color isn't a data point.  It's a variable, and it's important because it's the variable most closely related to culture you can identify with the available data.  Until they start including parents' income on birth certificates or make "white trash" its own checkbox, that information is harder to come by.


Just because the data aren't readily available isn't a good excuse to measure the wrong thing. Don't get me wrong, these studies are good for some things, just not for this. If I measured the lifetime incomes of all left-handed people without controlling for the percentage of people who work in factories with right-handed mangles, I wouldn't be getting useful information. If I measured the STD rates of homosexual males without controlling for the percentage of them who are married or are forced by society to seek out sexual partners in bus station restrooms, I'd be getting bad information.
 
2013-05-20 05:06:57 AM

sendtodave: TopoGigo: Oh, it doesn't confuse me in the least. It depresses me, but it doesn't confuse or surprise me. Of course, there's a fair amount of classism mixed in there, too, but at least in the legal system, the racism weighs more heavily.

Racism, classism, sexism (both ways).

I dunno, for me to not be confused, I'd have to stop believing in the ideal of a fair judiciary, which would make me also depressed.  Did we just not design it correctly?


We designed it as fairly as we could have, given that humans are genetically predisposed to tribalism and xenophobia, as well as being so good at pattern recognition that we see patterns even when they aren't there. If you want to control the human factor, you're going to have to discover extraterrestrial life so we have a bigger "them" to define out of our tribe.
 
Displayed 50 of 297 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report