"White liberals are the most racist people"-Ben Carson

[the mechanic]

What???? The graph doesnt do anything that you're suggesting. The black poverty rate dips even further in '74, there is slight upward tick around '76, then more dipping. Of course you completely ignore the positive response blacks made under the great society initiatives, and the poverty explosion experienced during the Reagan revolution --- an era blacks are still trying to recover from, and a period which served as clear setback for an economically vulnerable community. This is what is so frustrating about arguing with conservatives. You guys are never shy in completely making up your own facts.

First im not a conservative

OK let me tell you what I see..The poverty rate was already falling before the "great society" programs so you cant point to that decline before LBJ and say his programs worked..look at the trend after 1974 the number of poor people doubles and the poverty rate fluctuates very little..what is that if its not failure

FACT.You cant deny there are more poor people now than there were before the war on poverty ..its just fact not conservative spin or whatever you want to call it

FACT.There Black family is worse off now than in the 60s The Black Family Is Worse Off Today Than In the 1960's, Report Shows | Your Black World

You call it conservative hype all you want but it wont change the numbers..as long as these programs are in place we wont ever see another black wall street

 

[bzb]

I'll take it. Some cuts > no cuts

the dems proposed cuts across the board that would be more realistic and palatable to the nation as a whole. the gop tentatively agreed then decided to take the 'no compromise' route and reject the idea of compromise. what do you think about that?


personally i have no problem with black people supporting the gop principles, but i do have an issue supporting what they practice. they've pledged not to compromise and come closer to the middle. why should we support them in practice?

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

Capitalism is at its heart a system of economic mobility, and most people do not spend their life, in one bracket.

I strongly disagree. Most poor people stay poor and have poor kids. Most middle class people stay middle class and have middle class kids. Most rich people yadda yadda. The idea of economic mobility has always been a sham. The only people its valid for are third world immigrants. Someone coming from third world poverty w/education/skills will see a huge improvement in quality of life and status. Most other people will just be happy to stay where they are.

 

[bzb]

First im not a conservative

OK let me tell you what I see..The poverty rate was already falling before the "great society" programs so you cant point to that decline before LBJ and say his programs worked..look at the trend after 1974 the number of poor people doubles and the poverty rate fluctuates very little..what is that if its not failure

FACT.You cant deny there are more poor people now than there were before the war on poverty ..its just fact not conservative spin or whatever you want to call it

FACT.There Black family is worse off now than in the 60s The Black Family Is Worse Off Today Than In the 1960's, Report Shows | Your Black World

You call it conservative hype all you want but it wont change the numbers..as long as these programs are in place we wont ever see another black wall street

are you saying black families are getting worse as a result or byproduct of the societal programs implemented in the 50s 60s?

do you actually read the links you post? it looks like you're just grabbing the headlines and not actually taking the content/context. black families are worse of by some specific measures, but the reasons those finding refer to aren't related to the programs implemented in 50s and 60s.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Conservatives are racists. That is what their agents is wholly based on. Are liberals phony? Sure. We are all phony to some degree. Would I rather work with a liberal than a conservative? As a black man, of course. Ill take the patronizing ways of a liberal over the outright hate of conservatives.

Yeah that stuff about rather fukking with a blatant racist than a closet one sounds good at first take, but if you examine it for more than 2 seconds, it's stupid bullshyt.

The reason being 99% of white people and all people for that matter are racist to some extent. So you're dealing different degrees of racists no matter what. But to line up with those who actively hate and want to institutionally disenfranchise you at worst, or are totally uncaring or oblivious to institutional obstacles at best because the other guys may be condescending, ashamed secret racists that don't make you their paramount concern is silly.

Virtually everybody is a closet racist to some extent. That doesn't mean I should vote for Rush Limbaugh on my city council over @daze23 because Daze23 might harbor some secret resentment over black coli posters calling his people cacs.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Conservatives are racists. That is what their agents is wholly based on. Are liberals phony? Sure. We are all phony to some degree. Would I rather work with a liberal than a conservative? As a black man, of course. Ill take the patronizing ways of a liberal over the outright hate of conservatives.

Yeah that stuff about rather fukking with a blatant racist than a closet one sounds good at first take, but if you examine it for more than 2 seconds, it's stupid bullshyt.

The reason being 99% of white people and all people for that matter are racist to some extent. So you're dealing different degrees of racists no matter what. But to line up with those who actively hate and want to institutionally disenfranchise you at worst, or are totally uncaring or oblivious to institutional obstacles at best because the other guys may be condescending, ashamed secret racists that don't make you their paramount concern is silly.

Virtually everybody is a closet racist to some extent. That doesn't mean I should vote for Rush Limbaugh on my city council over @daze23 because Daze23 might harbor some secret resentment over black coli posters calling his people cacs and occasionally type "junglebunny" in his browser then stare at it for 30 seconds without ever hitting submit.

 

[MeachTheMonster]

First im not a conservative

OK let me tell you what I see..The poverty rate was already falling before the "great society" programs so you cant point to that decline before LBJ and say his programs worked..look at the trend after 1974 the number of poor people doubles and the poverty rate fluctuates very little..what is that if its not failure

FACT.You cant deny there are more poor people now than there were before the war on poverty ..its just fact not conservative spin or whatever you want to call it

FACT.There Black family is worse off now than in the 60s The Black Family Is Worse Off Today Than In the 1960's, Report Shows | Your Black World

You call it conservative hype all you want but it wont change the numbers..as long as these programs are in place we wont ever see another black wall street

More nonsense. Your article starts out by saying "yeah all groups have declined but lets just talk about black folks" then it goes on to compare black folks to white folks for the remainder of the article.

First off the "kids out of wedlock" "black family worse off" narative is flawed at best. The actual NUMBER of black kids born to young unwed mothers has gone way down. The PERCENTAGE has gone up because people are more likely to have kids before getting married these days, this doesn't mean they will grow up without both parents. Also married black women just aren't having very many kids at all, so it makes the ratio look bad.

So flaunting the 70% out of wedlock rate is more propaganda by conservatives to demonize black folks. Plenty of kids who are born out of wedlock are raised in a two parent home and plenty of kids born to married parents, grow up in a one parent houshold. Saying a child was "born out of wedlock" tells you absolutely nothing about the child's upbringing or future.

Furthermore the black community has consistently improved its educational, and economic standing all while the "out of wedlock" rate has gone up, therefore it can't be as detrimental as people like you say it is.

 

[DEAD7]

the dems proposed cuts across the board that would be more realistic and palatable to the nation as a whole. the gop tentatively agreed then decided to take the 'no compromise' route and reject the idea of compromise. what do you think about that?


personally i have no problem with black people supporting the gop principles, but i do have an issue supporting what they practice. they've pledged not to compromise and come closer to the middle. why should we support them in practice?

<<that would be more realistic and palatable to the nation as a whole. >> What its going to take to right this ship(America) isnt going to be palatable.

I agree the extreme conservative position the GoP has allowed the tea party to instill has been horrific at best.

 

[DEAD7]

I strongly disagree. Most poor people stay poor and have poor kids. Most middle class people stay middle class and have middle class kids. Most rich people yadda yadda. The idea of economic mobility has always been a sham. The only people its valid for are third world immigrants. Someone coming from third world poverty w/education/skills will see a huge improvement in quality of life and status. Most other people will just be happy to stay where they are.

This simply isnt true... unless you are counting people who do not wish to climb the ladder. The very poor.




its really not worth debating, cause we probably have slightly different ideas of what "poor" and "rich" are, and completely different ideas of what "fair" and "just" are lol.



I just want to encourage people to throw economic class statistics in the bushes.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

This simply isnt true... unless you are counting people who do not wish to climb the ladder. The very poor.

If you dont want to debate stuff like this, don't throw it out. ESPECIALLY ideas like "the very poor are so because they want to be".

Economic mobility has come into scope with the growing wealth/income gulf, but the reality is for most American born people economic mobility has never been a reality. Point out the time when it was, if it ever was, cause I'm running through US history and not seeing it. ESPECIALLY for the middle class.

 

[Piff Perkins]

As I've said before, I respect black conservatives. What I don't respect, at all, is black conservatives who allow themselves to be toys for white conservatives to attack liberals with. I'm sure Carson has taken shyt from black (and white) democrats over the years in Maryland, as they asked him to endorse candidates or support bills or speak at civil rights dinners and he said no. I can imagine he has indeed heard people say stupid shyt about him due to his political beliefs.

It's amazing how quickly he lowered himself to this level. This dude is a world renowned surgeon, he doesn't need to strike for the lowest common denominator possible to appeal to just 30% of the fukking country. I don't care that he's a conservative, but why is he pallin around with the most extreme conservatives possible? And telling them what they want to hear...

fukk this plantation shyt. I can't believe he's agreeing with a cac that black democrats aren't thinking for themselves. the fukk is this shyt b

 

[the mechanic]

are you saying black families are getting worse as a result or byproduct of the societal programs implemented in the 50s 60s?

do you actually read the links you post? it looks like you're just grabbing the headlines and not actually taking the content/context. black families are worse of by some specific measures, but the reasons those finding refer to aren't related to the programs implemented in 50s and 60s.

Did you look back and see what started all this..No Bammer was hyping up LBJ and talking up his great society programs..I just wanted to point out that the great society wasnt the success he thought it was


Now if you wanna delve into how the article i posted (which was merely a link to a article because i couldnt find the specific report)relates to the great society programs i would be more than willing to...but that would probably be a big thread derail and is a topic large enough for its own thread.

Ill make another thread on that later tonight when i have time....

 

[bzb]

Did you look back and see what started all this..No Bammer was hyping up LBJ and talking up his great society programs..I just wanted to point out that the great society wasnt the success he thought it was

posting that article in addition to the graph makes it look like you're saying those programs either weren't successful or may have actually done more harm than good. both of those presumptions would be wrong and the article you linked doesn't support your case.

Now if you wanna delve into how the article i posted (which was merely a link to a article because i couldnt find the specific report)relates to the great society programs i would be more than willing to...

ok. however, the points in that article make no mention of nor do they relate to the great society programs. you'd be making a straw man argument at best if that's going to be your source for the discussion. just saying...

i'm open to your pov on it in this thread or another. should be interesting to see how you align your claim with that article.

 

[DEAD7]

If you dont want to debate stuff like this, don't throw it out. ESPECIALLY ideas like "the very poor are so because they want to be".

Economic mobility has come into scope with the growing wealth/income gulf, but the reality is for most American born people economic mobility has never been a reality. cause I'm running through US history and not seeing it. ESPECIALLY for the middle class.

I didnt want to debate it because of how off topic it is/would become...


I didnt say "they want to be". I doubt anyone wants to be poor... but there are people that are comfortable living off of assistance


<<Point out the time when it was, if it ever was>> It always has been, and is currently.


Your average college grad is a good example: falling into the "poor bracket" during school years, graduating going into his field and moving into the lower-middle class/middle class, and entering upper-middle class/"rich" after 10-15yrs in his profession.

Spoiler

On the flip side a billionaire can take a year off make less than $10,000 and fall into the poor statistic for that year. After all statistics don't show net worth...

That said, I'm always open to new evidence. Post any links you think I should visit.

 

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

I didnt want to debate it because of how off topic it is/would become...


I didnt say "they want to be". I doubt anyone wants to be poor... but there are people that are comfortable living off of assistance


<<Point out the time when it was, if it ever was>> It always has been, and is currently.


Your average college grad is a good example: falling into the "poor bracket" during school years, graduating going into his field and moving into the lower-middle class/middle class, and entering upper-middle class/"rich" after 10-15yrs in his profession.

If they are still financially attached in any way to their middle class parents, this whole point is moot. They are still dependents of their parents and are thus within whatever class their parents are in.

And lower to upper middle class is still middle class. I dont know if you know but middle class wages are stagnant. People are not "moving up the ladder" in any majority.

Spoiler

On the flip side a billionaire can take a year off make less than $10,000 and fall into the poor statistic for that year. After all statistics don't show net worth...

That said, I'm always open to new evidence. Post any links you think I should visit.

ITs not what you make, its what you spend. A billionaire who lives on savings is not living like someone w/no savings and a $10K income.