Why vote for the party that wants to keep you dependent on the government?
I am not saying that I believe all minorities vote Democrat, nor that all of them are dependent on government assistance in its many forms. I know that is not the case, so don't let that be the only thing you respond to here. This is not about the single mom who accepts WIC while her children are young in order to feed them and make ends meet. I am talking about those who live on welfare their entire lives, generation after generation, and you know there are those who do. I am also not saying that minority voters are not intelligent enough to know what they're doing when they go out and vote. But it is a fact that more minorities vote Democrat than Republican, so that is my starting point.
What I am wondering is this:
Do minority voters realize that the Democrat party is responsible for creating and perpetuating the welfare state that serves to keep them from succeeding in life?
Do they believe Democrats who tell them that Republicans hate minorities and want to keep them down?
Or is it just that they know Democrats will keep giving them entitlements, which in turn prevents them from ever moving away from the welfare system and having a productive life?
Please don't make this a forum about slavery. Slavery is long gone and was abolished by a Republican President, so that's not going to prove your point...
I would love to hear your opinions, whatever side of the aisle you happen to vote for.
because the G.O.P. has a histiry of throwing those folks away as non productive for the system. Poverty is a big money business for Capitalists, they do not want it fixed, and those folks know this.
why vote for the hands that refuses to fix the problems the most.
after awhile you wake up to being used!
Minorities don't have any other option,they have to think about their future and future generations.
Minorities do not have any other option because they have to think about their future and their future generations.
This question is like asking why do all conservatives live in a trailer? It's all based on assumption.
good question. Let's examine the some of the alternatives...
Senator Strom Thurmond
The Republican Party was way different in Lincoln's time from the Republicans we have now.
The park I spend most of my outdoor time is
socialist welfare state. Would the Republicans privatize it into private keep-out developments and would the Democrats not?
Your question seems to imply that only minority people rely on social assisstance.
Read it again. That's not what the question is even about.
Your question does indeed make that assumption.
"I am not saying that I believe all minorities vote Democrat, nor that all of them are dependent on government assistance in its many forms. I know that is not the case, so don't let that be the only thing you respond to here."
Yes...but you made it sound like all those on social assistance belong to minority groups.
If I had said don't assume all minorities are dependent on social assistance then I would have misread the question.
Well I apologize for make it sound that way... Obvisouly I know better, having lived a few years and met a few people. I have, however, lived within a couple of blocks of one of the most notorious housing projects in the cess pool known as New Orleans. This was a wonderful experience. And being lucky enough to meet some of my neighbors I do know a little about that particular "culture".
But, I realize that the majority of minority voters do not live there and are not lifelong welfare recipients. However, you and I both know that there are more minorities on welfare than whites, and they are the ones I was addressing. It's just a fact, not a criticism.
The criticism is that they keep voting for those who would keep them dependent and perpetuate the belief that they cannot live without government help.
I grew up in Lynn Mass. and have seen whole generastion of families make a career out of welfare. it happens alot within all races.
You're right. I lived in Appalachia and many people there - all white - lived on it their entire lives. No running water or electricity but a nice vehicle to go apply for food stamps. But I do think the numbers of minorities on welfare dwarf those numbers. Come to Texas and you'll see proof, and now we have to lay off teachers to pay for free lunches at schools during the summer! Not a white kid in the bunch.
But we are racist of we piont that out, or state that illegals are draining us faster that we can re-fill our coffers. We have enough to supprt with just our own citizens and those here legally. Our economy is being leeched to death and the Left and Progressives do not care. They cannot wait for this nation to collapse so they can re-structure it in their own image.
And you don't think that might just be because the US isn't quite as colour blind as some would have us believe?
No I don't.
matter of fact show me the country in the world which has the diversity of races within their govt which we do. China? No. Brazil? No Most do not have it. And most probrably never will.
Not yet, but your idols are working on it.
What diversity of races in your government?
And that does not prove a lack of an underlying racism.
You've only got to look at the mainstream racism shown to your own president to know what a lot of rubbish talk of equality is.
Oh sure because no one ever said anything bad about our many white presidents. I guess that's ok since they couldn't claim racism, just hate.
And besides, this is coming from a Brit. They have a real diverse government there. As long as you're white or born into nobility, whatever that is.
Hm, nobility isn't allowed to sit in the commons. Apart from that we do have a pretty diverse representation, about 74% is white, a rather lower figure than that of the population as a whole, we aren't up to 50% women but still, 22% is the latest figure. We have Indian, Chinese and black MPs.
Still, I'm not the one boasting about our wonderful diversity.
"Despite prevailing stereotype, Whites, not Blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars"
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/w … n-1195103/
Perhaps because they make up the largest population; but the percentage of recipients within each racial group tells a different story.
Yes it does KK. It is like when the leftists cry about oil profits, which are about 7 cents on the dollar. They like to play number games.
And they never complain about the ridiculous amounts of money actors make, because they always seem to be on the liberals' side. What's their contribution to society other than influencing the public? At least big oil creates thousands of jobs, which we appreciate here along the Gulf Coast.
How do you arrive at that stance based on these opening remarks?
"I am not saying that I believe all minorities vote Democrat, nor that all of them are dependent on government assistance in its many forms. I know that is not the case, so don't let that be the only thing you respond to here. This is not about the single mom who accepts WIC while her children are young in order to feed them and make ends meet."
Clearly for anyone who cares to look knows that the MAJORITY of people on state and federal aid are NOT Minorities. However a larger percentage of minorities recieve aid when compared to their percentage of the total population.
For instance 2/3's of all welfare recipients are white. However the percentage, based on their respective population, whites on welfare is around 10%. The percentage for blacks is 22%. Hispanics, 21%. Asians, 10%. Keep in mind that these are national averages. The numbers can be drastically different regionally. Take Detroit for instance. I bet their distribution is very equitable.
So my take is that the idea of LBJ's "Great Society" fixed one problem and created another. A problem that some have made political hay out of. Not all Dem's have leveraged special voting blocks in respect to Welfare. Clinton for example "Cleaned the rolls". Albeit with a R controlled house/senate.
Becuase history has been white-washed to clean the Dems up and blame the Repubs for all the ills of the Minority world. You can thank the implimentation of Cultural Marxism by the frankfurt School, and the Leftists control of Media, Education, and many other of the important cultural institutions in this country.
"Leftists control of Media, Education" Am thinking you don't know what a leftest is.
You watched CNN lately? Didn't know leftest were so in love with war is it four now.
Leftists love wars, when they strt them and control them. What would make you think Leftists are anti-war? Becuase some are? And it is 3 illegal wars and two legal. that would be 5
so sayeth the disinformation troll. Thanks Joe McCarthy/Mason - we'll surely consider the McCarthy avatar as a sign of the just and reason, right after we get back from Narnia.
You are welcome to think what you want. I have him as an avatar for just that reason, to piss off Liberals, Socialists, Commies and Leftists and Progressives. And damn it works just fine. Joe McCarthy was the greatest politician to walk the American Stage i the 20th century. And more and more American are recognizing that fact every day. And we are all beging to see just how betrayed we have been by the Left.
So you don't want to actually discuss this, just piss people off.
Good to know.
I did not say that. So go put words into someone elses mouth, Psyche. You people just think you can sling any BS you want and everyone should bow before you... what a laugh. he hasn't named anyone, and you are a baiter. hahahaha oh the Left kills me.
4 is right. The only way to get this country right in the eyes of God is to put more drunken bigots in power.
God bless you 4.
"Are we a racist nation.... certainly not."
I would say America is racist disguised as class, which no one can talk about. Every progressive society needs an untouchable class to measure themselves against as how much better.
Yes every Progressive society, but not America. It took us the better half of the last century to shake off the repulsive traits of the Progressves and the Leftists buddies. Woodrow Wilson set us back to the mid 1800s when he segragated the US Govt and Army, and in turn gave a hint to all those closet racists that were still lurking in the shadows the go ahead to be all the racist they could be.
Does corporate welfare qualify as a handout? Many billion dollar corporations still accept and demand government handouts and have for generations. This is acceptable to you? I assume it is as the republicans are the ones who fight for their own brand of welfare.
KK, here in Spartanburg SC they are laying off teachers so we can afford to pay rediculous salaries for, and build million dollar buildings for, the administration employees. SC ranks at the bottom in quality of education and yet our school adminstrators are among the highest paid government employees in this area. All 7 school districts that are required to support the students in an area that has around 250,000 residents. Not students, residents. The good ole boy system is alive and well down here, the school districts have a habit of giving uneeded high paying jobs to unqualified people based upon the fact that their parents or friends are among the wealthiest residents in this area. Why is this not considered welfare? They are taking in ver $100.000 a year and doing nothing to earn it.
I am not a fan of stimulises nor corperate welfare in general, subsidies etc. Cut them all of. if a company cannot make it in the market it doesn't belong there. That includes oil gas and green energy.
Personally I don't care to much for American history. Pretty murky and murderous stuff. I would not build an identity around it. Where is your ruling class my friend not to be found in the American history books. To learn history I find one has to read something like 'War and Peace' by Tolstoy.
what are you talking about? do you even live here? we don't have a ruling class nor do we want one.
BS. There happens to be a ruling class. It's called the upper 1% who controls the wealth.
And would you include liberal Hollywood in that 1%? Talk about stealing, they get paid to pretend to be like the rest of us on screen. Ridiculous. I don't know why no one complains about them taking advantage of the masses and then telling regular folks they should donate to charity when there's a disaster. They could pool their funds and save Africa if they chose to.
I guess the above post, just simply shows you don't know the upper 1% is in America. Maybe you should actually go and learn, instead of posting meaningless, drivel in forums threads.
I don't even know what that reply means. And I have done a little learning. Plus I believe this is my forum thread...
Funny, I thought it was our forum--a jointly owned discussion.
This thread isn't YOUR thread. It is a public forum thread for the community members of HP. Yes, you are a member, just like all who post here.
To clarify for you, so you don't have to go and learn something, the upper 20% of America's citizenry would include those who work in Hollywood. However, of that 20%, only 1% of them actually control the wealth, power and politicians of the Nation.
Hollywood is a mixture of actors and actresses, who barely understand how to maintain their wealth.
The upper 1% utilizes the power of the entire nation to create their wealth.
"I am not a fan of stimususes nor corperate welfare in general, subsidies etc." Yes you are in favor of it, by being against everyone who against it. All you are left with is them.
Ok, so I guess we've gotten off topic a bit. I am partially to blame because I can't resist a debate (argument?). So, My original question was this:
I understand that not all welfare recipients are minorities, and I understand that not all minorities are on welfare.
I would like a coherent answer to the question of why those minorities who depend on government assistance continually vote for Democrats, and most do. If anyone has an explanation of that historic trend, I would like to understand. Thank you.
Democrats historically have taken care of the poor and elderly. Republicans always seem to choose entitlements to be the first programs cut during economic instability. Republicans are also known for the tax breaks for the wealthy and for corporate welfare in the form of bailouts, etc. I believe that not only minorities, but all persons who receive assistance vote that do vote, Vote democratic for fear of losing benefits and therefore not being able to feed their families or having to choose between theur prescription drugs(elderly) and food.
I understand that you believe this is causing more harm than good. I agree there shouldn't be the possibility of "lifelong" assistance, however, I am a Democrat and believe in helping those in need to be able to get on their feet and have a shot at the American Dream.
Yes, but my point is that those who live on entitlements for long periods should want more out of life. Why do they think re-electing Democrats will make things better for them? Isn't there more to life than living on food stamps and being afraid someone will cut your aid when times get hard. Why not try something new?
Getting on your feet is one thing, and believe me I had some harsh years as a kid when unemployment kept my family afloat. But it was temporary, and that's what it's meant to be. We should all want to make more of ourselves.
I agree, I believe we time limits. If people realize going in they have x amount of years in order to get on there feet it would work better. When I went through a divorce I had to get help, it was hard times, but I couldn't wait for the day to thank them for there help and tell them I no longer needed it. That mind set could be created by time limits.
If you want to help 'others', you are certainly welcome to. Just don't come to me and steal my money at government point to assuage your conscience. I use my funds to help those that I choose to help and expect no one else to chip in unless they do so voluntarily.
Using taxes to take care of the poor and elderly is no different than using them to secure our infrastructure. Having good roads is no more important than having healthy citizens to get on their feet and also pay taxes; or to insure better educational programs for our children since we are lagging behind so miserably. By your comment I wonder if you feel robbed when taxes are used to pay for the military that fights for your freedom?
I was part of the military that fights for your freedom.
A reasonable amount of taxes for appropriate needs are not the problem. The problem is having to pay more because some do gooder thinks they can save everyone by throwing other peoples money at it.
1. We can't save everyone!
2. I am not rich but you want to take my money for what you think is appropriate.
3. Why in the hell do I have to support the elderly? Why didn't they save enough to support themselves, like I'm going to have to do? I have to pay for their lack of foresight and inability to think and care for themselves?
4. Why am I expected to pay for other people's healthcare? Shouldn't we all pay for our own? I am!
The other day 2 men where at the grocery store. They were obviously together. They were helping each other pick out items for both carts. When they got up to the checkout, the first guy had a cart full of groceries and pulled out over $200 of food stamps to pay for them. The second guy has a cart full of liquour and when it is his turn, he pulls out a big wad of 100 dollar bills to pay for it.
This is not unusual. Happens all the time. Just one more example of a corrupt, inequitable system funded by taxpayer dollars.
Perhaps you should ask the minorities why they vote Democrat? I could guess/speculate, but I'm not a mind reader.
Excuse me, our forum. I'm just the one who asked the question and don't think I should be told not to post.
Don't worry about it, KK. They, many of those here, have told me over and over that I don't belong here, and that I should leave. Consider it a compliment, as I do. I hear that a hundred times a day. Speak you mind and to hell with those who do not like it.
To be quite honest, I'm not sure the people you refer to even vote.
Not all minorities are on generational welfare.
It's not welfare or entitlements that enslave people.
I have a question- who exactly is the minority? The term itself is subjectively based.
Example: homeless people represent a minority, because it's 15% of the population - those living in poverty are a minority, because they represent 13% of the population - Hollywood actors and actress are a minority, because they are included in the upper 20% of America's population - the highest and most wealthiest of America are a minority, because they are 1% of the population.
So, what exactly is the minority you are talking about?
I don't consider anyone a minority based on anything other than race. You may disagree. I am talking about racial minorities. Anyone other than white. And yes, I know that they aren't the only ones who are on welfare... I have been told. My question is about those who are on public assistance, are minorities, and vote.
Okay, I guess that means that your question is flawed through your own reasoning, considering you have decided to pick on them via race.
First, let's clear up something- the racial minority is a minority because it makes up approximately 20% of American citizens. Which btw- is almost as large as America's workforce.
With approximately 15% of Americans homeless, these people are not part of the workforce, households or receiving public assistance.
With approximately 20% of Americans presently making over $1 Million a year, then these same people are not likely to be taking public assistance either.
So far, 35% of Americans are not taking public assistance. The 20% who are minorities, not ALL of them are on public assistance, yet through the programs offered by government(state and federal) over $2 Trillion is spent?
So, that leaves us with the workforce, which is mostly made up of the middle class citizens, which is about 45% of Americans.
As for who they vote for? Approximately 50% of household citizens are actually registered to vote. Out of that 50% of registered voters, 50% of them do not vote.
So, bringing up the fact that "minorities" vote for Democrats is quite irrelevant and only proves that people love to throw around distortion and misinformation, just so they can anger others.
Just a thought.
First, it is impossible to reach a satisfactory answer without acknowledging the destructions of slavery. That said, to give credit for the abolishment of slavery is almost insulting. The fact that It took nearly a hundred years after the abolition of slavery for African Americans to be granted their basic civil rights flies in the face of democracy.
Secondly, the idea that minorities are dependent on welfare is a fallacy at best. Caucasians receive more welfare than minorities. Not by numbers, by percentage.
Finally, the Democratic Party appeals to people because the government is supposed to be “Of the people, by the people and for the people”, not corporations. What do the Republicans stand for beyond tax-cuts?
It's what the Dems stand for and what the Repub are seemingly against. The Dems want to help people as do the Repubs, however the Dems for the most part feel that the govt should be the catalyist instead of the Repubs way of getting the people to be their own catalyist. Also the Dems are way more in favor of Social Justice which is just a new name for Socialism. The Dems will never deny that Capitalism built this country, however their mantra is now let's give everbody their fair share. If you remember when the annoited one went over to Europe - they greeted him with open arms.
Why vote for the party that keeps you dependent on govt - because they still want govt handouts, and there are those that know how to play the system.
Government Dependency and "Minorities"
Where to begin.....
Coincidentally, The Offspring's "Genocide" just ended on my Youtube feed...
I could start with the original English minority ruling elite of the Colonies....many of whom became Founding Fathers, and their dependency on tight legal autority to protect their hegemony....
While indentured servants and "released" small-holding (way out on the frontier) "freeman" made up the majority of the colonial and Antebellum periods of American history (not to count the African indentured servants turned into slaves and their afterward solely bound to bondage bretheren)...a small minority class pulled the reigns and collected the profit..
It was a law that justified the private ownership of human beings in this nation....and it was this very issue that was the sole reason ever argued behind the rise of the Confederacy and the Civil War..
"The last U.S. census slave schedules were enumerated by County in 1860 and included 393,975 named persons holding 3,950,546 unnamed slaves, or an average of about ten slaves per holder. The actual number of slaveholders may be slightly lower because some large holders held slaves in more than one County and they would have been counted as a separate slaveholder in each County. Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, with about 1 in 70 being a slaveholder. It is estimated by this transcriber that in 1860, slaveholders of 200 or more slaves, while constituting less than 1 % of the total number of U.S. slaveholders, or 1 out of 7,000 free persons, held 20-30% of the total number of slaves in the U.S. The process of publication of slaveholder names beginning with larger slaveholders will enable naming of the holders of the most slaves with the least amount of transcription work."
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.anc … 0001027214
Check it out...
It was the manipulation of government that constructed the United States' most valuable asset....its transcontinental transportation systems...first by rail and then by interstates.... I look then at the hundreds of billions of dollars in wealth that move freely across these systems....for their profit...
Just a relatively recent example:
"The federal involvement with highways goes back to 1905, when the Bureau of Public Roads was created. In 1916, President Wilson signed the Federal Aid Road Act, which dedicated $5 million to help states build new roads. This marked the beginning of federal revenue sharing with states for road construction. In 1921, the US Congress set a goal of linking every county seat in the nation with smooth surface roads." Source: The Amtrak Story, Frank Wilner
Sure, anyone can use these networks... But this hardly justifies the manipulation of government by families like the Huntingtons and Stanfords... They were dependent on government doling out money and land to them.... They were very dependent on the U.S. military...
Dependence on the government...to do only what a certain minority wishes it to do...
Realizing that it is with the legal code that a minority of legislators and their ilk, over time the "undesireables" (I need not list the socially, politically, and economically outcast do I?) were able to find ways of getting laws passed that gave them some protections....
While laws like California's AB 540 enable undocumented students to pay the same tuition rates as legal state citizens, the vast majority of people using and benefitting from it are American citizens...
The law states that California residents (in this case citizens of the U.S. as well) leave the state for a period of time, when they return they will not be considered "out of state" for the purpose of paying for university fees...
While a quarter at UCLA costs a California resident around 3500 dollars someone from any other state will pay twice as much
AB 540, using the word "resident" specifically without relation to "citizen" allows for undocumented to pay in-state prices..
Zankou Chicken, a favorite out here in Los Angeles (look them up) is dependent on its undocumented workforce... I know someone right now who is working for them, and who is undocumented...
From restaurants and hotels, to carwashes and slaughterhouses, there is an ongoing dependency by this same minority caste to perpetuate political, social, and economic agitation...whether it be in Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Panama, or Ecuador (to name a few places)...
http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/06/ … in-us.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/20/opini … eyamoscoso
"When President John F. Kennedy delivered his inaugural address in 1960, U.S. citizens were captivated by his vision of the United States heroically "bearing the burden" to fight for freedom and democracy worldwide. Yet frequently during the cold war, the United States was not the defender of freedom, democracy, and justice as many Americans wanted to believe. Rather, the United States was the supporter of the conservative status quo in the Third World. In numerous instances, the leaders which the United States chose to support in the name of capitalism, stability, and anticommunism repeatedly acted against moral principles the U.S. rhetorically emphasizes. Preservation of their own power was the most important interest of these leaders, not the institutionalization of democracy within their respective nations, well distributed economic growth, or respect for human rights."
Exerpt from the third posted source above..
From United Fruit turned Chiquita, Dole and Del Monte, to the profits gained through the tax-dollar subsidized Canal goods passage system (how many billions flow wast to east?)....the dependence on tax dollar subsidized programs like the School of the Americas-now dubbed the "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_He … ooperation
Whether dependent on Supreme Court seat positions to enable a judgement in favor concerning Citizen's United to receiving "bailouts" (directed at the financial sector specifically) benefit a specific minority exponentially beyond human need...
..and the lack of any support for the remainder of the American populace speaks volumes.
Directly toward the assertion that "minorities" (ethnic, not economic) are more dependent on government than the "white" (artificial identity) population:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 73,00.html
And we have to remember these kinds ot things:
http://books.google.com/books?id=UNtUW9 … mp;f=false
Why do ethnic minorities tend to vote for Democrats?
Labor protection legislation like the National Labor Relations Act was signed by a Democrat...and labor rights continue to be more favorably approached by Democrats and their appointees to places in government, like the National Labor Relations Board...
What of protections against the practice of policies like "redlining"?
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory. … /1050.html
It would be Democrat Jimmy Carter who would sign the law that attempted to shut redlining down, though forces found within the GOP and Teaparty seem bent on undermining the Community Reinvestment Act by hook and crook (mostly crook)..
But it is well known that Democrats are by no means an ideal....there is simply no alternative at this point...
http://labornotes.org/2011/05/democrats … ing-rights
Civil Rights legislation and support throughout the 20th Century have been set in place disproportionately under Democratic administrations....and while Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act that granted amnesty for undocumented men and women, the hypocrisy of Republican candidates like Meg Whitman and the actions of Arizona and recently Alabama by Republicans will continue to drive voting citizens who understand the reality behind the immigration debate away from the "right"...
There is more to say....infinitely more....
The main point.....there is a minority that is heavily dependent on the government....and its an economic caste playing an ethnic tint game to perpetuate its hegemony...
Too many people argue about myths.... There comes a time to move out of the clouds...
Hi Ms. Trainor,
I am not one of “those who live on welfare their entire lives, generation after generation, and you know there are those who do” people and that may disqualify me from replying. Given that there is no way to know how many, if any, of “those who live on welfare their entire lives, generation after generation” actually vote in any election, there is a possibility your three questions might actually be moot. But let us both assume, for now, that your perennial welfare recipients do vote regularly.
I, too, became interested in knowing the answers to the three questions you directed to the racial minorities who vote Democratic. Exactly who are they? I turned to the Pew Research Center because they do such a fine job painting the political landscape in this country. In their survey entitled Beyond Red vs. Blue they identify a segment of the voting public as DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS who represent 10% of the general population and 10% of all registered voters. About 84% identify themselves as Democrats while only 16% are Independent or have no preference. Overall, 99% vote or lean toward the Democratic Party.
Least financially secure of all surveyed voter groups, these citizens are very anti -business and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy.
Minorities account for a significant proportion of this group but only 32% is black, roughly the same proportion as among Conservative Democrats. Their disapproval of George W. Bush’s job performance (91%) and their 82% preference for Kerry in 2004 are on a par with LIBERALS.
Most are likely to be skeptical of an individual’s ability to succeed without impediments and most are anti-business. They share a strong belief that government should do more to help the poor, yet most are disenchanted with government as a whole. They strongly support organized labor and 71% have a favorable view of labor unions. The average household income of 32% in this group is below $20,000; most say they struggle to make ends meet. More than half are women, 32% are black and 14% are Hispanic. Only 33% have more than a high-school degree. More than any other voter group, 31% report CNN as the main source of their news and they are the only group in which a majority reads newspapers.
If you address your questions, which I’ve modified as indicated to remove your exposed bias, to those within this group “who live on welfare their entire lives, generation after generation” here is what I think you will hear:
Q. Do you realize that the Democrat party is responsible for creating and perpetuating the welfare state? Since there is no evidence that such a state, if it exists, would serve, as you say, “to keep them from succeeding in life”, there is no point including this phrase in your question.
A. Of all DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS, 68 % favor programs designed to help blacks, women, and other minorities get better jobs and education. This is completely instep with the 67% of all voters (Republicans, Democrats, and Independents) who share the same opinion.1
Q. Do you believe Republicans hate minorities and want to keep them down? (If this is what they truly believe, does it matter who told them?)
A. The Republican Party is historically pro-business, anti-regulation, and opposed to broad government programs to assist the poor.2
Q. Do they know Democrats will keep giving them entitlements? There is no evidence that giving entitlements prevents recipients from moving away from welfare, or from having a “productive life”, so there is no point including these phrases in the question.
A. A full 78% believe hard work and determination are no guarantee of success for most people.3
1. http://people-press.org/files/legacy-de … es/242.pdf , page 7.
2. http://people-press.org/2005/05/10/part … oalitions/
3. http://people-press.org/2005/05/10/prof … gy-groups/
Thank you, Ms. Trainor. I found your questions interesting and the answers easy to find.
Isn't it funny to think that the Republican party used to be the party of Abraham Lincoln, the president who freed the slaves. The Democratic party used to be the party of the southern white bigot. How things change. Wait fifty years and maybe things will turn 180 degrees again, huh?
"Q. Do you believe Republicans hate minorities and want to keep them down? (If this is what they truly believe, does it matter who told them?)
A. The Republican Party is historically pro-business, anti-regulation, and opposed to broad government programs to assist the poor."
The overwhelming number of Americans using these programs check the "white" box..
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 73,00.html
Many of these have been caught up in the Tea Party movement...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … y-20100928
From across the "Pond":
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003505067
"Without redressing an economic system that enriches a minority by disadvantaging many, promoting social mobility through “aspiration” foments division, not cohesion. When some communities are accused of failing to integrate or receiving preferential treatment, the economic order of our times — with its obscene income differential between the top earners and the rest — is let off the hook. Britain is sleepwalking not into a failed multiculturalism, but to a profound and damaging economic segregation."
-Priyamvada Gopal (linked article)
This "economic segregation" has been in full swing in the United States throughout its history...
When you basically call an entire group of people losers who do not want to make anything of themselves, don't you pretty much answer your own question?
That attitude is the attitude that always comes from the Republicans. Why would anyone on the receiving end vote for that?
If the choice is between Democrats who are sympathetic to your situation or Republicans who think you are scum, sucking away the greatness of the nation, the choice is pretty simple.
But even aside from attitudes, just look at tangible considerations. Democrats fight for labor and civil rights and provide social assistance programs, and over the past few decades have actually run the economy better and created more jobs.
Can you name one single thing that the Republicans have to offer poor people?
The whole question is ridiculous. There isn't even any competition between someone who offers you nothing and someone who offers you a lot.
Democrats have no intention of creating a welfare state. They simply want to provide assistance to people who need a little help. That is a GOOD thing. Just like people in general do not want to be dependent on state assistance. Nor does anyone not want to make more of themselves. These are constructed myths, designed to make it alright to hate poor people (they deserve their lot).
YES, there are problems with the system, and there are people who take advantage of it - that does not condemn the entire system or an entire group of people. Instead of taking an entire system and group of people and monolithically disparaging them, why not offer up fixes for the system or an alternative system that is better. For instance, there are some Welfare-to-work programs that have seemed to be pretty successful.
If you really want to gain votes, you have to offer people something. So, what is the Republican proposition? At the moment it isn't anything. They are too busy obsessing over women's wombs to do anything else, but if they did, it would be to slash entitlement programs, destroy unions, eliminate consumer protections, and wither away civil liberties. Why the hell is anyone going to vote for that?
Basically their message is that they are going to hurt you for your own self-improvement. Even in the bizzare world the GOP seems to inhabit, can you honestly see people voting for that?
66% of republicans don't believe in evolution.
Why would anyone actually put their confidence in a group of people who still believe in fairy tales? This isn't kindergarden, it's running a country we are talking about. Also, show me one example of a republican accomplishment in the last 20 years besides starting two illegal wars, the war on terror, the loss of pallets containing millions of dollars,the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and destructionthe economy. My bad, we do have the republicans to thank for the patriot act and those freedoms we will never get back.
Yeah you're right, no Democrats voted for any of those things.
I'm sure that no Democrats voted for anything to do with the Vietnam war and all the atrocites commited there either. Even though they controlled the White House and the Congress. The Repbulicans made them do it.
No Democrats voted to keep the Patriot act either did they? Even though the current administration wanted it extended.
Republicans are far from perfect, but then so are the Dems. Selective vision is like selective hearing, it can come back to bite you.
Republican presidents like to gain points like cutting taxes and give everyone tax breaks. But they fail to realize that the money has to come from somewhere and borrowing it from China seems like an answer. When things go south, the next President (usually a Democrat because the previous Republican president screwed up) comes in and is faced with huge deficits and have to raise taxes to pay for the tax cuts and breaks that the previous president passed out like candy.
"I was part of the military that fights for your freedom."
Were you fighting for this freedom?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books … nted=print
There hasn't been a fight "For our freedom" waged by the U.S. military since World War 2....
I served in the military, and I can say that it largely serves as a vehicle for corporations to suck on the tax dole....
We invade Iraq.....the tax teets are laid bare as our nation's leadership falls on its side, like a mother pig, as Halliburton, Dyncorp and countless others run in to feed...except instead of these companies being the little piglets, they are full grown pigs of their own, but never broken off from the suckling stage...
"A reasonable amount of taxes for appropriate needs are not the problem. The problem is having to pay more because some do gooder thinks they can save everyone by throwing other peoples money at it."
That was the logic that kept the GI Bill white only....that made sure Blacks, Latinos and Asians fighting and dying for the United States got nothing for their service while "whites" received nice new homes in suburbs like the San Fernando Valley...(with deeds that pronounced their homes and neighborhoods "white only" and "transferrable to white only")...
Federal taxes to support the post-racist GI Bill has increased tremendously...
It is too bad those "do-gooders" saw the need to make sure everyone had access to the same treatment...
What is being discussed here has nothing to do with "do-gooders", but removal of the false notion that ethnic minorities are "the problem" or that they are the ones "dependent on the system".... All of which is false..
Americans are allowing more and more wealth flow to the plutocratic top of the economic foodchain....and while they are being vacuumed of their worth the people pushing the vacuum are pushing the overal populations against one another...
"I am not rich but you want to take my money for what you think is appropriate."
If it is found that our deficit problems are directly tied to two long wars and tax reductions would you be willing to demand more return from those who profited?
Or will you only look to the poor, or to the dark-skinned people who many believe have caused poverty?
"Why in the hell do I have to support the elderly? Why didn't they save enough to support themselves, like I'm going to have to do?"
The evolution of American society has changed tremendously over the past 70 years... Instead of staying together, the "American" model has been to leave parents behind to seek individual fame and fortune... The elderly have lost their value...the rapid progession of technology has increasingly phased them out...
Social Security and other forms of government assistance, for many if not most, is all that they have left...
What will the world look like when you are elderly Logic? Will you be able to take care of yourself into old age, and if not, will you still express the same views that you do now?
"I have to pay for their lack of foresight and inability to think and care for themselves?"
Brave words.... Have you foreseen the path that your life will take? What condition will you be at 65 or 70, and who will be around to take care of you?
I have watched what Kaiser Permanente has done....and the differences in treatment they give to white clientele compared to people of color...especially when English is not the primary language of the recipient..(much to their detriment, unfortunately)
"The other day 2 men where at the grocery store. They were obviously together. They were helping each other pick out items for both carts. When they got up to the checkout, the first guy had a cart full of groceries and pulled out over $200 of food stamps to pay for them. The second guy has a cart full of liquour and when it is his turn, he pulls out a big wad of 100 dollar bills to pay for it."
I worked in a grocery store for years...and I never saw anything like what you just described...
Could you be more descriptive in your writing? I am trying to figure out whether you left out the ethnicities of these two men intentionally.... If you then decide to point to people of color, let me then refer you back to a link I have shared twice previously in this thread:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic … 73,00.html
I did watch daily as mothers came in with their WIC...
I am not calling you a liar, but I am willing to say that what you describe is far from the norm...contrary to what you are attempting to infer...
"Subsidized weapons sales are just one part of an increasingly burdensome system of corporate welfare for the weapons industry. Escalating equipment costs argue for subsidized foreign sales. Foreign sales, in turn, induce funding for development of even more sophisticated and expensive weapons."
http://www.fpif.org/reports/warfare_vs_ … _exporters
The article point to how this above described process simply increases the amount of money that taxpayers have to feed into the weapons industry... This piece was from 1995, if I believe....and we all know that since September 11th military spending overall went through the roof... Therefore, we are now faced with a compounded problem....
Will we cut from where it counts, or will we simply empower political cowards who are paid for by the corporate-welfare system?
Will we continue to pick on the poor while Citigroup, Goldmann Sachs, Halliburton and their ilk play games at our expense?
Then again, according to Citigroup, "the numerous Americans".. the "average Americans" don't count anyway...
by IDONO 7 years ago
Who is more likely to vote? Unemployment or welfare recipients?Even though the number of people is far larger of welfare recipients, ( in some form ) I,m guessing more unemployment people will vote. I'm talking numbers, not %. I believe economic issues are very important to unemployment people...
by ga anderson 6 months ago
I listened to a few of the Democrat Convention speeches. I have followed a few of the candidate's stump speeches. And of course, I have heard a lot of the planned 'sound-bytes' we are all hearing on the news.My first thoughts are of amazement that almost every Democrat candidate is proposing...
by Charles James 7 years ago
I am not an American, but what goes on in the USA is important to the world.Lincoln was a Republican and freed the slaves. One would expect black Americans to generally vote Republican. But they don't.How did this come about?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
Why are large families ALWAYS dependent upon outside assistance to keep them socioeconomicallyafloat as opposed to small families who are very socioeconomically self-sufficient? Typical large families are poor to impoverished socioeconomically. That means that in order to be...
by Peeples 7 years ago
Should veterans lose government assistance after committing certain crimes?I understand respecting those who fight for our country, but should a veteran rapist really get free health care?
by The British Way 6 years ago
In today's world, this question will be treated with anger and hostility, accusations of xenophobia and white supremacist will come my way I'm sure. But that's not my arguement. Its simply one of, we, as a society, are so eager to please minorities and be politically correct about everything that...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|