Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

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

#878 May 12 2015 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
"Criminal Scum"
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#879 May 12 2015 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
"Unaborted Fetuses"

Fetai?

Feethai?

Footies?
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#880 May 12 2015 at 7:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
"Unaborted Fetuses"

Fetai?

Feethai?

Footies?


Fetal Cheese.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#881 May 13 2015 at 7:42 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Honkeys.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#882 May 13 2015 at 5:08 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
New York Times wrote:
A social stratum that once signified a secure, aspirational lifestyle, with a house in the suburbs, children set to attend college, retirement savings in the bank and, maybe, an occasional trip to Disneyland now connotes fears about falling behind, sociologists, economists and political scientists say.


Sounds remarkably like the definition I was using. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#883 May 13 2015 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
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".


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.


If only there was a political party trying to help the middle class grow and thrive rather than just redefining it to include lower and lower relative income ranges. As I pointed out earlier, without some kind of relative economic condition being the determinant of what we call the "middle class", the term ceases to actually have any meaning at all. What are we striving for if not some measure of financial security and comfort? Why is it wrong to actually say "I want to earn enough to own a home in a nice neighborhood, be able to take the occasional vacation, and have enough left over to be relatively financially secure, and maybe enough to help my kids live better lives?". I assume that's what most people want, right? So why is it wrong to actually identify that as a group and measure it as a means of measuring how well our economy is allowing for that level of success.

We want people to succeed, right? When did the American Dream become something we should be embarrassed of? I just don't get it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#884 May 13 2015 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
New York Times wrote:
A social stratum that once signified a secure, aspirational lifestyle, with a house in the suburbs, children set to attend college, retirement savings in the bank and, maybe, an occasional trip to Disneyland now connotes fears about falling behind, sociologists, economists and political scientists say.


Sounds remarkably like the definition I was using. Smiley: tongue

So you understand that you were using an antiquated definition and not one applicable to today? That's brave of you to admit it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#885 May 13 2015 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
gbaji wrote:
New York Times wrote:
A social stratum that once signified a secure, aspirational lifestyle, with a house in the suburbs, children set to attend college, retirement savings in the bank and, maybe, an occasional trip to Disneyland now connotes fears about falling behind, sociologists, economists and political scientists say.


Sounds remarkably like the definition I was using. Smiley: tongue



ONCE.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#886 May 13 2015 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
He also just sorta ignored the income guidelines mentioned below that section Smiley: laugh

No one is arguing that a median income life once afforded you with much more stability. That's... sort of the point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#887 May 13 2015 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So it's not because of the government, but because charity with government creates the entitlement problem?


Um. Yeah. What part of what I wrote is confusing to you. Government does several things very well. It's good at creating and enforcing laws. It's good at maintaining a military and police forces to protect us. It's good at negotiating treaties with other governments. What it's not good at? Charity. I thought I was quite clear about this.

Quote:
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.


Except that when government runs charities, it does not do this. It has *never* done this. You can sit at your keyboard and insist that it "could" do so, but absent (as I said earlier) such massive reform as to make the distinction you seem to be making here irrelevant, this isn't going to happen. Government does not make distinctions as to *why* you are poor. It merely looks at need and fills it. And it does this based on pre-established rules that can't be adjusted on a case by case basis at all. A private charity can kick someone out if they're high, or dealing drugs, or otherwise engaged in behaviors that will perpetuate their need. Government cannot.

That's why government sucks at charity. If you simply give people stuff when they are poor, you remove the disincentives to making poor choices. And in all the decades I've watched politicians talk about welfare reform, they have still not addressed (nor come remotely close to addressing) that fundamental problem. We can certainly reform welfare to make it a bit less bad, but it's still ultimately bad. And the core problem is that those who support welfare spending don't actually seem to think that this is a problem. How can I expect any sort of actual useful welfare reform can ever occur when people like you insist that welfare isn't a problem, that it does not contribute to poverty at all. Heck. You spent pages arguing against the idea that it creates an opportunity cost for success. How on earth can I trust that you'd support changes to remove an effect that you don't even think exists?

Could they reform it to address my concerns? Maybe. Will they? Not as long as the mere mention of reform is attacked so vehemently by people who've become convinced that welfare must be maintained or the poor (who are disproportionately black and latino, so this automatically gets a racial connotation) will suffer. When people get called racists just for saying that welfare is a problem, it's hard for me to accept that we can actually "reform" the system. I have to first get you to even acknowledge that it's a problem. And you've so far steadfastly refused to do even this.


Alma wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
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.


No. I want you to do what I actually asked you to do. I'm not disagreeing with you that blacks vote for specific policies. I'm asking you to explain *why* they do that. In a manner that isn't in the form of "because the GOP is bad...". I've asked this like 10 times so far in this thread, and you still haven't done this.

Even when I followed your "what we oppose rather than what we support" list, you failed to follow through. When I asked you why blacks oppose charter schools (or private schools in general), you dodged the question. When I asked what about the VRA was "gutted" and why you thought it was so important an issue relative to so many others, you dodged that to, just falling back on repeating the original claim "The GOP gutted the VRA", despite me pointing out that the Supreme Court ruled on it, not the GOP. The legal changes didn't "gut" the VRA at all. Same deal when you talked about immigration. I asked you why a GOP position on something that doesn't actually affect blacks at all should resonate so strongly that you'd list it as a position that blacks would use to determine which party to support. In response, I got... nothing.

You have your "laundry list" of things that blacks care about and use to decide which party to vote for. But once we get past the labels of those things and ask "why do blacks care about this, and why is one position on this issue so much better than another for them", you basically sputter out, fail to provide an answer, and then quickly change the subject. When you ask why I keep saying that many black voters do this because they've been told to and aren't bothering to ask if they're really "good for blacks", this is part of why. If you can't tell me why opposing private schools is a position that blacks should hold, then what am I to think about you holding that position so strongly? You've leaving me no option but to assume you've just been given a list of positions you should hold, and told that your a "bad black person" (Uncle Tom) if you don't, and you never challenged that.


Can you tell me why you personally hold various political positions then? Maybe we're just getting off track talking about "black people", and should just start with one.


Quote:
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.


What does that even mean though? "Blacks care about the VRA"? Care about what? What aspects of the VRA? What parts? Why? Do you even get that this is such a vague statement as to be meaningless?

Alma wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.


Huh? Your response didn't address the statement I made that you quoted. WTF? I'm asking you a question. Why not just answer it?

Edited, May 13th 2015 5:52pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#888 May 13 2015 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
New York Times wrote:
A social stratum that once signified a secure, aspirational lifestyle, with a house in the suburbs, children set to attend college, retirement savings in the bank and, maybe, an occasional trip to Disneyland now connotes fears about falling behind, sociologists, economists and political scientists say.


Sounds remarkably like the definition I was using. Smiley: tongue

So you understand that you were using an antiquated definition and not one applicable to today? That's brave of you to admit it.


Hardly antiquated. I guess the left desperately wants it to be so though. Easier to hide the failings of their social and fiscal policies, and the negative effect it's had on the middle class, by just redefining "middle class" to mean basically anyone earning a paycheck. Look Ma! The middle class is doing just fine!

Lol! Great job missing the point though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#889 May 13 2015 at 6:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
He also just sorta ignored the income guidelines mentioned below that section Smiley: laugh


I didn't ignore it. It's not relevant with regard to what makes someone "middle class". The range has to include a household consisting of a single person living in say Nebraska, and a family of 4 living in New York. So, of course, the middle class can range from a household income of $30k to $100k, depending on those differences. But what makes someone "middle class" is the same things I talked about earlier. It's about relative economic stability and security.

Quote:
No one is arguing that a median income life once afforded you with much more stability. That's... sort of the point.


Yes. But hiding this by defining "middle class" as a percentile earnings range (as Smash insisted on), doesn't help. Which is ... sort of the point. For the term to be meaningful, it has to refer to more than just "a range around the middle". It's not "middle income", it's "middle class". Meaning that the "class" is in the middle, not their earnings. The term middle class specifically refers to the class of people "in the middle" between what was traditionally a more stratified pair of classes (the rich people and the common folks).

Class is not about relative earnings. It's about standard of living. Hence, middle class must refer to a standard of living, not just a earnings range. Obviously, at any given point in time, we can point to an earnings range that can grant one that standard of living, but it's a mistake to lose sight of the "class" part of "middle class".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#890 May 13 2015 at 7:07 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Um. Yeah. What part of what I wrote is confusing to you. Government does several things very well. It's good at creating and enforcing laws. It's good at maintaining a military and police forces to protect us. It's good at negotiating treaties with other governments. What it's not good at? Charity. I thought I was quite clear about this.


Gbaji wrote:
Except that when government runs charities, it does not do this. It has *never* done this. You can sit at your keyboard and insist that it "could" do so, but absent (as I said earlier) such massive reform as to make the distinction you seem to be making here irrelevant, this isn't going to happen. Government does not make distinctions as to *why* you are poor. It merely looks at need and fills it. And it does this based on pre-established rules that can't be adjusted on a case by case basis at all. A private charity can kick someone out if they're high, or dealing drugs, or otherwise engaged in behaviors that will perpetuate their need. Government cannot.

That's why government sucks at charity. If you simply give people stuff when they are poor, you remove the disincentives to making poor choices. And in all the decades I've watched politicians talk about welfare reform, they have still not addressed (nor come remotely close to addressing) that fundamental problem. We can certainly reform welfare to make it a bit less bad, but it's still ultimately bad. And the core problem is that those who support welfare spending don't actually seem to think that this is a problem. How can I expect any sort of actual useful welfare reform can ever occur when people like you insist that welfare isn't a problem, that it does not contribute to poverty at all. Heck. You spent pages arguing against the idea that it creates an opportunity cost for success. How on earth can I trust that you'd support changes to remove an effect that you don't even think exists?

Could they reform it to address my concerns? Maybe. Will they? Not as long as the mere mention of reform is attacked so vehemently by people who've become convinced that welfare must be maintained or the poor (who are disproportionately black and latino, so this automatically gets a racial connotation) will suffer. When people get called racists just for saying that welfare is a problem, it's hard for me to accept that we can actually "reform" the system. I have to first get you to even acknowledge that it's a problem. And you've so far steadfastly refused to do even this.

You've admitted that welfare can be used to benefit lives, but argue that the likelihood is low due to personal actions. I countered that stipulations can be put in place. You countered to say that could happen in theory, but it isn't done in practice; however, the GOP indeed fights for stipulations all of the time, i.e. drug testing. This isn't a trust issue, it's the simple fact that your entire argument is based on the fundamental belief that the government shouldn't be involved in social programs, period. Even the GOP supports it at the state level. Blacks and Latinos could be the minorities in welfare and the argument for welfare would be the same.

Gbaji wrote:
No. I want you to do what I actually asked you to do. I'm not disagreeing with you that blacks vote for specific policies. I'm asking you to explain *why* they do that. In a manner that isn't in the form of "because the GOP is bad...". I've asked this like 10 times so far in this thread, and you still haven't done this.

Even when I followed your "what we oppose rather than what we support" list, you failed to follow through. When I asked you why blacks oppose charter schools (or private schools in general), you dodged the question. When I asked what about the VRA was "gutted" and why you thought it was so important an issue relative to so many others, you dodged that to, just falling back on repeating the original claim "The GOP gutted the VRA", despite me pointing out that the Supreme Court ruled on it, not the GOP. The legal changes didn't "gut" the VRA at all. Same deal when you talked about immigration. I asked you why a GOP position on something that doesn't actually affect blacks at all should resonate so strongly that you'd list it as a position that blacks would use to determine which party to support. In response, I got... nothing.

You have your "laundry list" of things that blacks care about and use to decide which party to vote for. But once we get past the labels of those things and ask "why do blacks care about this, and why is one position on this issue so much better than another for them", you basically sputter out, fail to provide an answer, and then quickly change the subject. When you ask why I keep saying that many black voters do this because they've been told to and aren't bothering to ask if they're really "good for blacks", this is part of why. If you can't tell me why opposing private schools is a position that blacks should hold, then what am I to think about you holding that position so strongly? You've leaving me no option but to assume you've just been given a list of positions you should hold, and told that your a "bad black person" (Uncle Tom) if you don't, and you never challenged that.


Can you tell me why you personally hold various political positions then? Maybe we're just getting off track talking about "black people", and should just start with one.
Gbaji wrote:

What does that even mean though? "Blacks care about the VRA"? Care about what? What aspects of the VRA? What parts? Why? Do you even get that this is such a vague statement as to be meaningless?
You said: "I would argue that the perception that Democrats support social programs that benefit black people is a huge reason why black people vote so overwhelmingly Democrat. If you think otherwise, then by all means, provide said alternative explanation.". I gave you said alternative explanation. Then you shifted your concern to "why", "is it ok", "should they vote", etc. I responded that I cannot address those concerns without you acknowledging that blacks do NOT overwhelmingly vote Democrat because of social programs, but for policies in general that just so happen to align with the Democratic platform.


Gbaji wrote:

Huh? Your response didn't address the statement I made that you quoted. WTF? I'm asking you a question. Why not just answer it?
Not only did I address your concern, the conversation was about your misuse of the term "Uncle Tom". Your statement was completely irrelevant to my post and now you're accusing me of avoiding you by staying on topic.
#891 May 13 2015 at 8:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Hardly antiquated. I guess the left desperately wants it to be so though.
[...]
I didn't ignore it. It's not relevant..

Wow, so you managed to cherry pick out a sentence, misread the context, declare that the context doesn't matter anyway nor does the rest of the definition and called it a win? Good for you!

Smiley: clap
Quote:
Look Ma! The middle class is doing just fine!

That is... umm... the diametric opposite of what the article was saying. Curse those NYT fiends for tricking everyone into saying the middle class is just fine by running an article about the collapsing middle class and how it's affecting the candidate's rhetoric! Curse them, I say!
Quote:
Lol! Great job missing the point though.

It's the irony that makes people laugh at you.

Edited, May 13th 2015 9:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#892 May 14 2015 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
If only there was a political party trying to help the middle class grow and thrive
There isn't. Comfortable people are harder to scare into siding with you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#893 May 14 2015 at 6:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Look Ma! The middle class is doing just fine!

That is... umm... the diametric opposite of what the article was saying. Curse those NYT fiends for tricking everyone into saying the middle class is just fine by running an article about the collapsing middle class and how it's affecting the candidate's rhetoric! Curse them, I say!


The article made more or less the exact same "middle income is no longer middle class" argument that I've been making.

My comment wasn't about the article, but about what folks like Smash are trying to do when, instead of addressing the fact that middle income no longer means middle class, they instead attempt to just redefine middle class to no longer mean some degree of financial security, but just mean "middle income". The reason to do that is to pretend that "middle class" is just a range of earnings in the middle and has always just been a range of earnings in the middle, so any claims that the "middle class" has shrunk or is in trouble are just made up things by people using an imaginary definition of middle class that really never existed. And along the way, they can also use rhetoric like "this social spending program is good for the middle class" to broaden support for such things.

Specifically, Obama has used that terminology as a counter to Romney's "47%" argument. Romney was making the point that the percentage of people receiving direct government assistance has grown dramatically. By relabeling those people as "middle class" Obama gets to make it seem like they're doing just fine, when they really aren't. Oh. And he can also make it appear more "normal" that so many people are receiving aid. See. It's not an indication of any problem, because "middle class" people receive such benefits, right?



Edited, May 14th 2015 5:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#894 May 14 2015 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The article made more or less the exact same "middle income is no longer middle class" argument that I've been making.

If you're illiterate, sure. It says that "middle class" no longer enjoys the security it once did. It doesn't attempt to redefine "middle class" upwards along the income scale.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#895 May 14 2015 at 7:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You've admitted that welfare can be used to benefit lives, but argue that the likelihood is low due to personal actions. I countered that stipulations can be put in place. You countered to say that could happen in theory, but it isn't done in practice; however, the GOP indeed fights for stipulations all of the time, i.e. drug testing.


Yes. And we're fought tooth and nail when we do this. And we usually only get small reforms. And those small reforms still don't address the core problem.

Quote:
This isn't a trust issue, it's the simple fact that your entire argument is based on the fundamental belief that the government shouldn't be involved in social programs, period. Even the GOP supports it at the state level. Blacks and Latinos could be the minorities in welfare and the argument for welfare would be the same.


Yes. Which means that my argument isn't based on the color of the skin of those receiving the benefits. Thanks for finally admitting it.

As it happens though, Blacks and Latinos are currently those most disproportionately affected by welfare. Which is how we get things like the disproportionate police stats that started this entire argument. I'm proposing a solution to the problem. What are you doing?

Alma wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
No. I want you to do what I actually asked you to do. I'm not disagreeing with you that blacks vote for specific policies. I'm asking you to explain *why* they do that. In a manner that isn't in the form of "because the GOP is bad...". I've asked this like 10 times so far in this thread, and you still haven't done this.

You said: "I would argue that the perception that Democrats support social programs that benefit black people is a huge reason why black people vote so overwhelmingly Democrat. If you think otherwise, then by all means, provide said alternative explanation.". I gave you said alternative explanation.


No, you didn't. Here's what you actually said:

Alma wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I wold argue that the perception that Democrats support social programs that benefit black people is a huge reason why black people vote so overwhelmingly Democrat. If you think otherwise, then by all means, provide said alternative explanation.

There's that lack of respect. It's actually people like you who believe that black people are blind and mindless sheep who prefer to be on welfare are the reason why blacks vote Democrat. They are more so voting AGAINST Republicans as opposed to voting FOR Democrats. It's the lesser of the two evils.

There is a difference between the established GOP and the typical conservative base, but when every Confederate flag wearing, "go back where you came from" person you meet is a registered Republican, you don't feel quite welcome. When conservatives, like yourself, jump to defend people like Zimmerman and label Martin as a "thug" as opposed to feeling sorrow for his loss, you don't feel welcomed.

This is not about welfare or social problems and to think that's the case is the reason why black people don't vote Republican. There simply is no respect.


And you wonder why I keep asking you to give me a reason for this voting pattern that isn't in the form of "things we don't like about the GOP".

I asked why Blacks vote overwhelming Dem, and your response was "because the GOP hates us!" (more or less). When I asked for specifics, you gave your "laundry list". When I addressed individual points in that list, you changed the subject. When I then asked you to do an actual compare/contrast of the Dem policies versus the GOP and tell me why one party is better than the other, you refused. You keep insisting that the GOP is "bad for blacks", but when challenged, you can't seem to give a good reason why you think that. You rattle off "reasons", but they're paper thin. Once I ask "What's wrong with the GOP position on that issue", you avoid answering (or you give some really broad "because it's bad!" response).


Quote:
Then you shifted your concern to "why", "is it ok", "should they vote", etc. I responded that I cannot address those concerns without you acknowledging that blacks do NOT overwhelmingly vote Democrat because of social programs, but for policies in general that just so happen to align with the Democratic platform.


Well, if you can't give me a good alternative explanation (as I asked originally), then yeah, I'm going to stick with my original assertion that the Dems have convinced black voters that social programs are "good for blacks", and any party (like the GOP) who opposes social programs are "bad for blacks" and should be avoided (or even hated). Given that a good portion of your laundry list of reasons to oppose the GOP also happen to be GOP opposition to social programs, you're actually kinda supporting my argument.

How about instead of veering all over the map, you just give me *one* good reason for why blacks vote Democrat instead of Republican. I want a specific position on a specific issue, with a specific reason why black voters would care about that position difference so much that they'd vote Dem 90% of the time. Can you do that? And if you think you've already given me a reason, then pick one and focus on it. Because right now what you're doing is tossing out a bunch of stuff, and then bouncing around from one to the other so as to avoid discussing any one of them in detail.

Just give me a specific answer on one issue. Then we can go from there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#896 May 14 2015 at 8:06 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Yes. And we're fought tooth and nail when we do this. And we usually only get small reforms. And those small reforms still don't address the core problem.

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. Which means that my argument isn't based on the color of the skin of those receiving the benefits. Thanks for finally admitting it.

As it happens though, Blacks and Latinos are currently those most disproportionately affected by welfare. Which is how we get things like the disproportionate police stats that started this entire argument. I'm proposing a solution to the problem. What are you doing?

Gbaji wrote:
No, you didn't. Here's what you actually said:
Do you or do you not believe that blacks vote Democratic for reasons outside of welfare? If no, then there is no point in trying to convince you "why", if you don't believe that it happens in the first place.

Gbaji wrote:
And you wonder why I keep asking you to give me a reason for this voting pattern that isn't in the form of "things we don't like about the GOP".

I asked why Blacks vote overwhelming Dem, and your response was "because the GOP hates us!" (more or less). When I asked for specifics, you gave your "laundry list". When I addressed individual points in that list, you changed the subject. When I then asked you to do an actual compare/contrast of the Dem policies versus the GOP and tell me why one party is better than the other, you refused. You keep insisting that the GOP is "bad for blacks", but when challenged, you can't seem to give a good reason why you think that. You rattle off "reasons", but they're paper thin. Once I ask "What's wrong with the GOP position on that issue", you avoid answering (or you give some really broad "because it's bad!" response).

Gbaji wrote:
Well, if you can't give me a good alternative explanation (as I asked originally), then yeah, I'm going to stick with my original assertion that the Dems have convinced black voters that social programs are "good for blacks", and any party (like the GOP) who opposes social programs are "bad for blacks" and should be avoided (or even hated). Given that a good portion of your laundry list of reasons to oppose the GOP also happen to be GOP opposition to social programs, you're actually kinda supporting my argument.

How about instead of veering all over the map, you just give me *one* good reason for why blacks vote Democrat instead of Republican. I want a specific position on a specific issue, with a specific reason why black voters would care about that position difference so much that they'd vote Dem 90% of the time. Can you do that? And if you think you've already given me a reason, then pick one and focus on it. Because right now what you're doing is tossing out a bunch of stuff, and then bouncing around from one to the other so as to avoid discussing any one of them in detail.

Just give me a specific answer on one issue. Then we can go from there.
You asked me to provide an alternative reason why blacks vote Democratic outside of welfare, I gave at least 10. You cherry picked and distorted 2 and ignored the rest. Even though I provide you specific reasons why blacks support Democrats as opposed to being against Republicans, IT'S THE SAME FREAKIN THING IN A TWO PARTY SYSTEM. Furthermore, unless you think that the Democratic platform is good for any demographic (in a positive way), then you will never accept any explanation. You're merely trying to transition the conversation and then accuse me for being tangential, just like you did with the "Uncle Tom" topic.
#897 May 14 2015 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

No, you didn't. Here's what you actually said:
I forgot to add this. That response was BEFORE we differentiated the informed voter from the uninformed voter. You agreed that most people are not informed and if you're asking for why the support is 90%. then you must account for the uninformed voters. Once we acknowledged them and removed them from the scenario, I presented the reasons why informed black voters tend to vote for Democrat as opposed to against the GOP. Which again, doesn't matter in a two party system.
#898 May 14 2015 at 8:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The article made more or less the exact same "middle income is no longer middle class" argument that I've been making.

If you're illiterate, sure.


Um...

The NYT Article you linked and quoted wrote:
Rising costs mean many families whose incomes fall in the middle of the national distribution can no longer afford the trappings of what was once associated with a middle-class lifestyle. That has made the term, political scientists say, lose its resonance.


That's *exactly* what I was talking about with regard to "middle class" not being equal to a percentile income range "in the middle" as Smash claimed. They even paralleled my point about how in the absence of correlation to that financial stability assumption, the term loses its meaning (resonance in this case, since the article is speaking in terms of the political applicability of the term to potential voters). You have a strange definition of illiterate.

Quote:
It says that "middle class" no longer enjoys the security it once did. It doesn't attempt to redefine "middle class" upwards along the income scale.


No. It says that the middle class is disappearing. It's right there in the freaking headline of the article Joph. The entire article is about how since the median income range no longer supports the type of lifestyle and financial security that the term "middle class" has traditionally been associated with, politicians are having to cast about for new terms to reach voters. But that is the symptom of the effect I was talking about. That "middle class" no longer means "middle income". To be middle class requires earning more than the median income now.

Point being that this absolutely supports my use of the term, and not Smashs. Which makes it strange that you'd have linked it and thought it countered my statements.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#899 May 14 2015 at 8:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
NYT wrote:
middle-class Americans — broadly defined as working-age households with annual incomes of $35,000 to $100,000

But you just keep reading only the parts you want to read and pretending the rest of it doesn't exist. Sure, Gbaji, the article TOTALLY agreed with you!

Smiley: laugh

Quote:
No. It says that the middle class is disappearing. It's right there in the freaking headline of the article Joph. The entire article is about how since the median income range no longer supports the type of lifestyle and financial security that the term "middle class" has traditionally been associated with, politicians are having to cast about for new terms to reach voters.

You obviously didn't actually read the article. They were saying that the middle class, i.e. median income jobs were literally disappearing:
NYT wrote:
But sociologists say such surveys obscure how Americans feel about the characterization — and how much the middle class has shrunk. They call the new economy an “hourglass,” with a concentration of wealth at the top, low-paying service jobs at the bottom and “a spectacular loss of median-wage jobs in the middle,” said William Julius Wilson, a sociologist and Harvard professor.
...and...
NTY wrote:
After three decades of income gains favoring the highest earners and job growth being concentrated at the bottom of the pay scale, the middle has for millions of families become a precarious place to be.

Hey, it's talking about how money has been going to the upper income levels and job growth at the bottom tiers. Gee, that would leave us talking about the middle class... in the median tiers, eh? It ALSO says that even those median wage jobs "can no longer afford the trappings of what was once associated with a middle-class lifestyle" in that it's a double punch. The middle class is getting smaller as a percentage of people making a median wage AND that median wage doesn't provide the same security that it once did.

Edited, May 14th 2015 10:00pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#900 May 14 2015 at 8:54 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
The middle class lifestyle is the life style enjoyed by those earning the middle income. But now those earning the middle income are not able to enjoy the same life style that the previous generations have. Because wages have stagnated, and the middle income has dropped relative to the cost of living.

The middle class lifestyle was the lifestyle enjoyed by those earning the middle income. It still is, really. But that lifestyle has changed a lot over the years. The middle class lifestyle of this generation is not the same. So the middle class isn't shrinking. Their spending and saving power is. Their lifestyle is changing for the worse. What they used to be able to enjoy is disappearing, but they themselves are still there. Just not doing great.

Edit:
End result is the same though. One of those "Six of one, half a dozen of the other" deals. Middle class quality of life diminishing, or middle class shrinking and poor class rising.

Large employers paying employees relatively less as time goes on, resulting in fewer financially stable households.

Edit2:
Hey Officer Mitchell, I thought you said you didn't wanna come back out here again tonight?

Edited, May 14th 2015 11:30pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#901 May 15 2015 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Edit2:
"Want to see a dead body?"
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 284 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (284)