Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

Cheater cheater post deleter.

Because I'm talking about people who earn enough money to support their families without direct government assistance programs and with enough left over to actually build a bit of wealth for themselves and their children along the way. That's what I'm calling "middle class". Arguing endlessly that the label I'm using should really mean some other group of people completely misses the point. I'm talking about that group of people. Period. Call them "group X" if that makes you feel better. That's the segment of society that the GOP policies tend to appeal to most. The point at which people earn enough to fall into "group X", is right about the same point at which support flips from majority Democrat to Republican.

You're getting lost in a label. I'm talking about a specific group with specific economic features.

The reason this is relevant is that it shows that the demographics of the Democratic party is made up mostly of those poor enough to qualify for government assistance and those rich enough not to be affected by the taxes required to pay for that assistance. Those in the (dare I say it?) middle, are the ones screwed by those policies. Those people are also those who are the most productive and who most working people should be aspiring to be like. Point being that the Dems love to paint themselves as the party that cares about others, but the reality is that they seem to be the party about taking for themselves and getting other people to bear the brunt of the cost. Oh, and I suppose a smallish group of people also in the "middle" who have been talked into supporting a set of policies grossly harmful to them out of some kind of belief that they're actually "doing good".

What Dem policies mostly do is make it hard for people to improve their economic condition over time. This hurts the poor. It hurts the working class. It hurts the middle class (no matter how we define that). The only people it doesn't hurt is the uber rich. So yeah, I think it's relevant to show that when we get to the very very top of the economic pile, the demographics shift back to majority Dem.

I want it gone because it's has a net negative effect on people's real economic outcomes. Period. And no, I don't think that mere "reform" could eliminate that net negative situation because, as I've explained several times, the very nature of trying to do charity with government creates the entitlement problem. People come to think they have a "right" to those benefits when government hands them out but not when it's a private charity. And that mentality itself is responsible for a large portion of the problems welfare creates.

Saying that sometimes people who receive welfare can succeed isn't an endorsement of welfare. Sometimes, people can do hard drugs and be successful too. But that doesn't mean I think we should fund people's drug habits. Some great poetry exists because of hallucinogens, but for every Xanadu, there's a million idiots dying in a gutter somewhere gibbering about flying cats or something. It seems monumentally foolish to actually use public funds on something that does more harm than good.



If that's infeasible and dumb, then why argue that it's ok that blacks vote 90% for Democrats? Seems quite reasonable to ask you why you think the Democrats are better than the Republicans.



But that list was all thing in the form of "oppose this position of the GOP". I thought I was clear about this.



Huh? Do I have to actually go back and quote you (again)? You said that blacks "tend to oppose privatization of public services, like schools", and "The voting rights act is a great example". Ironically, you didn't say what it was an example of, but you said both of those in direct response for me asking you for a reason you support the Democrats, but to not put it in the form of "things we don't like about the GOP". And when I asked what you meant about the VRA, you said that the GOP "gutted it". So both of your responses did exactly that which I asked you not to do: Framed support for the Democrats based on opposition to the GOP.

You've done this continually. It's funny because I'll point it out and you'll say "I don't do that!", and then immediately turn around and do it again.

What policies of the Democratic party do you think are good? Specifically, good for blacks? So good that they'd vote Democrat 90% of the time? And I don't want a single answer to be "because the oppose <some position of the GOP>". That's still arguing against the GOP. I want an actual positive answer. Don't tell me what you oppose. Tell me what you support.

It's like pulling freaking teeth here.

Sigh. Putting the context back in because once again, you've gone of the rails:



Yeah. Because that's not the part of your post I was responding to. I've spoken at length about the definition and use of the term Uncle Tom in other responses (which, amusingly enough, you didn't address), but in this one, I was responding to the bolded statement you made. You were asserting that I had somehow provided a list of examples of black people thinking about policies that are good for them. I did no such thing. You gave a list of policies black people think are bad for them, though.

My argument is that black people are not helping themselves by voting in lockstep for the Dems. You keep insisting that it's reasonable for them to do so, but keep kinda dancing around when I ask why. That's what the second part of my response was about. You keep insisting that it's ok, but when I press you for reasons, you can't give any. Which does make me think that you don't actually understand the reasons. You've been told a set of positions you're supposed to hold and you are just repeating them.

But hey. Prove me wrong if you can. Just tell me reasons why black people should vote for Democrats that isn't in a "against something the GOP does" format. That would at least be a starting point.




Well, actually the exchange went like this:



I asked you for examples that were reasons to vote *for* Democrats and not reasons to vote *against* the GOP. You listed two things you didn't like about the GOP (your allegation that they "gutted the VRA", and that they support "privatization of and/or private schools in general". So you immediately went to exactly that which I asked you not to do. I'll note (again) that these don't say why the Dems are "better than the GOP", or even "better for blacks than the GOP". They are just things that you don't like about the GOP.


Do you even understand what I'm asking for? I want you to tell me why the Democrats are a good party to vote *for*. Not why you don't like the GOP. I'm looking for a positive answer, not a negative one. And I want actual platform positions of the party, not symptoms of black poverty (which is what you gave me earlier, and was the "laundry list" referred to). I think you're just having a problem with directionality. And you keep skipping logical steps. I want you to name specific Democratic party positions and/or actions and then tell me why blacks might vote for the Democrats because of that position or action.

While not a "general statement", it's useful because it's a survey of the entire nation (well, voters thereof) versus state-by-state where you have more local factors taking effect.

And, yes, gender is a factor. And race. And education, etc. Really, your little theory just isn't a great one nor is it supported by your (heh) "data". The switching point is well beyond the median income and, even after it, the drop isn't particularly severe. Even if you want to play your "Some well meaning but delusional people..." game, there's a very significant segment (42-45%) of "middle class" or whatever voters who still go Democratic. The only thing that makes it look like a "dive" or a "drop" is because the GOP does so incredibly poor with the lowest income levels that dropping from 70% to 42% looks worse on paper than what it really represents.

Edited, May 8th 2015 8:47pm by Jophiel

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

I want it gone because it's has a net negative effect on people's real economic outcomes. Period. And no, I don't think that mere "reform" could eliminate that net negative situation because, as I've explained several times, the very nature of trying to do charity with government creates the entitlement problem. People come to think they have a "right" to those benefits when government hands them out but not when it's a private charity. And that mentality itself is responsible for a large portion of the problems welfare creates.

Saying that sometimes people who receive welfare can succeed isn't an endorsement of welfare. Sometimes, people can do hard drugs and be successful too. But that doesn't mean I think we should fund people's drug habits. Some great poetry exists because of hallucinogens, but for every Xanadu, there's a million idiots dying in a gutter somewhere gibbering about flying cats or something. It seems monumentally foolish to actually use public funds on something that does more harm than good.

So it's not because of the government, but because charity with government creates the entitlement problem? The government can create as many stipulations as necessary to assist the ones willing to succeed. I can't think of a single concern that you might have (outside of the funding source) that can't be severely altered through some form of reform.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

If that's infeasible and dumb, then why argue that it's ok that blacks vote 90% for Democrats? Seems quite reasonable to ask you why you think the Democrats are better than the Republicans.

Gbaji wrote:

But that list was all thing in the form of "oppose this position of the GOP". I thought I was clear about this.

Quote:

Huh? Do I have to actually go back and quote you (again)? You said that blacks "tend to oppose privatization of public services, like schools", and "The voting rights act is a great example". Ironically, you didn't say what it was an example of, but you said both of those in direct response for me asking you for a reason you support the Democrats, but to not put it in the form of "things we don't like about the GOP". And when I asked what you meant about the VRA, you said that the GOP "gutted it". So both of your responses did exactly that which I asked you not to do: Framed support for the Democrats based on opposition to the GOP.

You've done this continually. It's funny because I'll point it out and you'll say "I don't do that!", and then immediately turn around and do it again.

What policies of the Democratic party do you think are good? Specifically, good for blacks? So good that they'd vote Democrat 90% of the time? And I don't want a single answer to be "because the oppose <some position of the GOP>". That's still arguing against the GOP. I want an actual positive answer. Don't tell me what you oppose. Tell me what you support.

It's like pulling freaking teeth here.

Sigh. Putting the context back in because once again, you've gone of the rails:

Gbaji wrote:

I asked you for examples that were reasons to vote *for* Democrats and not reasons to vote *against* the GOP. You listed two things you didn't like about the GOP (your allegation that they "gutted the VRA", and that they support "privatization of and/or private schools in general". So you immediately went to exactly that which I asked you not to do. I'll note (again) that these don't say why the Dems are "better than the GOP", or even "better for blacks than the GOP". They are just things that you don't like about the GOP.


Do you even understand what I'm asking for? I want you to tell me why the Democrats are a good party to vote *for*. Not why you don't like the GOP. I'm looking for a positive answer, not a negative one. And I want actual platform positions of the party, not symptoms of black poverty (which is what you gave me earlier, and was the "laundry list" referred to). I think you're just having a problem with directionality. And you keep skipping logical steps. I want you to name specific Democratic party positions and/or actions and then tell me why blacks might vote for the Democrats because of that position or action.

You want me to argue why blacks vote for/should vote for/ is ok to vote for specific policies without you actually acknowledging that blacks vote for specific policies. You're ignoring my actual list and focusing on the VRA and privatization in an attempt to pretend that I didn't answer your question.

Regardless, my very next reference to the VRA was "The VRA was put in place as a protection mechanism. Black people care about the VRA regardless who is talking about it. The DEMS wouldn't need to pander to blacks, college students, etc. about voter ID laws if the GOP didn't gut it ". The "gutting" was in reference to why DEMS would pander, not why blacks vote DEM.

Finally, no matter what position I provide to you, the opposite position is true for the other party, else it wouldn't be a reason to vote for a party. Against privatization = for public services.

Spoiler

Gbaji wrote:

Yeah. Because that's not the part of your post I was responding to. I've spoken at length about the definition and use of the term Uncle Tom in other responses (which, amusingly enough, you didn't address), but in this one, I was responding to the bolded statement you made. You were asserting that I had somehow provided a list of examples of black people thinking about policies that are good for them. I did no such thing. You gave a list of policies black people think are bad for them, though.

My argument is that black people are not helping themselves by voting in lockstep for the Dems. You keep insisting that it's reasonable for them to do so, but keep kinda dancing around when I ask why. That's what the second part of my response was about. You keep insisting that it's ok, but when I press you for reasons, you can't give any. Which does make me think that you don't actually understand the reasons. You've been told a set of positions you're supposed to hold and you are just repeating them.

But hey. Prove me wrong if you can. Just tell me reasons why black people should vote for Democrats that isn't in a "against something the GOP does" format. That would at least be a starting point.

You focused on the word "example" as opposed to the bigger point that the word "Uncle Tom" literally contradicts your claim that black people don't think about what policies are good for them.

That's because we're used to thinking that way, because the median income range used to provide that. It doesn't anymore. The "shrinking" middle class is more correctly named the "sinking" middle class.

What he's describing is affluence, which is different than (but traditionally correlates to) the middle class.

Damn, I'm only American six days a week.

Edited, May 11th 2015 9:38am by lolgaxe

"Folks".

"Walmart employees and shoppers"

"Jade Helm victims."

"filthy beggars"