CDZ A Comprehensive Look At The Uneven Playing Field

[Fair&Balanced]

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. When I was first starting out in the workforce as a teen, I encountered a lot of old blacks about to retire who came from huge families--10,12, 16 kids--and the parents had been together so something changed in the black community that started destroying many black nuclear families. Maybe it is welfare. Maybe it is something else IDK.

Right, it can't be 300 years of slavery, 100 years of disenfranchisement from society and the polls, along with 45 years of systematically patrolling slums to arrest black men for working the one occupation that many of them have access to thanks to racist restrictive residential covenants, etc. It has to be welfare.

If you thought about your line of reasoning for longer than 10 seconds, you'd see how flawed it is.

I don't need to spin so it doesn't take me long at all to face reality. Blacks who are married are significantly less likely to be poor. Same is true for whites.

That's a chicken/egg fallacy. You have nothing to back up your claim that marriage translates to more wealth.

Nothing except common sense and statistics anyway.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence understand that a 2 income household will build wealth faster than a one income household will. All else being equal.

Therein lies the problem. All else is not equal. LOL

What's not equal between a black man who marries the woman he got pregnant and creates a two income household and one who ditches a woman he got pregnant creating a welfare situation Gary?

 

[Dekster]

Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.

Which only makes sense, it is MUCH easier to rise out poverty as a two income household than as a one household income. So that right there tells you one of the root causes of the issue. black fathers don't raise their families.

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. When I was first starting out in the workforce as a teen, I encountered a lot of old blacks about to retire who came from huge families--10,12, 16 kids--and the parents had been together so something changed in the black community that started destroying many black nuclear families. Maybe it is welfare. Maybe it is something else IDK.

Right, it can't be 300 years of slavery, 100 years of disenfranchisement from society and the polls, along with 45 years of systematically patrolling slums to arrest black men for working the one occupation that many of them have access to thanks to racist restrictive residential covenants, etc. It has to be welfare.

If you thought about your line of reasoning for longer than 10 seconds, you'd see how flawed it is.

I don't need to spin so it doesn't take me long at all to face reality. Blacks who are married are significantly less likely to be poor. Same is true for whites.

That's a chicken/egg fallacy. You have nothing to back up your claim that marriage translates to more wealth.

I didn't say anything about income translating to wealth, though one would think that one would need one to rise up the socioeconomic ranks. Any more strawman fallacies you want to throw? This is the second one in five minutes BTW.

 

[320 Years of History]

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. ....

I don't need to spin so it doesn't take me long at all to face reality. Blacks who are married are significantly less likely to be poor. Same is true for whites.

That's a chicken/egg fallacy. You have nothing to back up your claim that marriage translates to more wealth.

I didn't say anything about income translating to wealth, though one would think that one would need one to rise up the socioeconomic ranks. Any more strawman fallacies you want to throw? This is the second one in five minutes BTW.

Red:
??? Gary remarks upon your claims about marriage's correlation to wealth and you reply about not having said anything about income translating to wealth? Am I the only one who sees that remark as either incoherent or a big mistake/misstatement? I don't know which it is, but it's gotta be one or the other....Just trying to follow the conversation....

 

[Dekster]

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. ....

I don't need to spin so it doesn't take me long at all to face reality. Blacks who are married are significantly less likely to be poor. Same is true for whites.

That's a chicken/egg fallacy. You have nothing to back up your claim that marriage translates to more wealth.

I didn't say anything about income translating to wealth, though one would think that one would need one to rise up the socioeconomic ranks. Any more strawman fallacies you want to throw? This is the second one in five minutes BTW.

Red:
??? Gary remarks upon your claims about marriage's correlation to wealth and you reply about not having said anything about income translating to wealth? Am I the only one who sees that remark as either incoherent or a big mistake/misstatement? I don't know which it is, but it's gotta be one or the other....Just trying to follow the conversation....

You did not go back far enough. Post # 28: "Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.". The word wealth does not appear in that statement. Someone could make a million dollars a year and have no wealth. I was discussing income. My statement is neither incoherent nor a mistake.

 

[320 Years of History]

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. ....

I don't need to spin so it doesn't take me long at all to face reality. Blacks who are married are significantly less likely to be poor. Same is true for whites.

That's a chicken/egg fallacy. You have nothing to back up your claim that marriage translates to more wealth.

I didn't say anything about income translating to wealth, though one would think that one would need one to rise up the socioeconomic ranks. Any more strawman fallacies you want to throw? This is the second one in five minutes BTW.

Red:
??? Gary remarks upon your claims about marriage's correlation to wealth and you reply about not having said anything about income translating to wealth? Am I the only one who sees that remark as either incoherent or a big mistake/misstatement? I don't know which it is, but it's gotta be one or the other....Just trying to follow the conversation....

You did not go back far enough. Post # 28: "Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.". The word wealth does not appear in that statement. Someone could make a million dollars a year and have no wealth. I was discussing income. My statement is neither incoherent nor a mistake.

Okay...TY for the clarification.

As always, context is everything. The thread of prior quotes that I see didn't include post #28 (perhaps someone I'm ignoring is in there causing that to happen?), so that's why I wasn't aware of it. TY again.

 

[Dekster]

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. ....

I don't need to spin so it doesn't take me long at all to face reality. Blacks who are married are significantly less likely to be poor. Same is true for whites.

That's a chicken/egg fallacy. You have nothing to back up your claim that marriage translates to more wealth.

I didn't say anything about income translating to wealth, though one would think that one would need one to rise up the socioeconomic ranks. Any more strawman fallacies you want to throw? This is the second one in five minutes BTW.

Red:
??? Gary remarks upon your claims about marriage's correlation to wealth and you reply about not having said anything about income translating to wealth? Am I the only one who sees that remark as either incoherent or a big mistake/misstatement? I don't know which it is, but it's gotta be one or the other....Just trying to follow the conversation....

You did not go back far enough. Post # 28: "Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.". The word wealth does not appear in that statement. Someone could make a million dollars a year and have no wealth. I was discussing income. My statement is neither incoherent nor a mistake.

Okay...TY for the clarification.

You are welcome.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. ....

I don't need to spin so it doesn't take me long at all to face reality. Blacks who are married are significantly less likely to be poor. Same is true for whites.

That's a chicken/egg fallacy. You have nothing to back up your claim that marriage translates to more wealth.

I didn't say anything about income translating to wealth, though one would think that one would need one to rise up the socioeconomic ranks. Any more strawman fallacies you want to throw? This is the second one in five minutes BTW.

Red:
??? Gary remarks upon your claims about marriage's correlation to wealth and you reply about not having said anything about income translating to wealth? Am I the only one who sees that remark as either incoherent or a big mistake/misstatement? I don't know which it is, but it's gotta be one or the other....Just trying to follow the conversation....

You did not go back far enough. Post # 28: "Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.". The word wealth does not appear in that statement. Someone could make a million dollars a year and have no wealth. I was discussing income. My statement is neither incoherent nor a mistake.

Okay...TY for the clarification.

I think the confusion arose, because I made the statement that it was easier to accumulate wealth with a 2 income family than with a 1. That doesn't mean all 2 income families will accumulate wealth of course, but you are more likely to do so when there are 2 incomes in the household.

 

[westwall]

The playing field hasn't been....and is still not....even.

And it never will be. Rich people have advantages that I will never have. Progressives are making the disparity worse. Taxes don't affect the rich, they affect the middle class. The sooner people figure that out the better we will all be.

Fine, then the rich won't mind if they're increased?

When will you understand that the rich only pay those taxes that they wish to. They WRITE the tax laws man. Thus, whenever a rich person says they are make the rich pay their "fair share" they are lying. The middle class is the group that pays the taxes.

 

[westwall]

Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.

Which only makes sense, it is MUCH easier to rise out poverty as a two income household than as a one household income. So that right there tells you one of the root causes of the issue. black fathers don't raise their families.

There's a very big cause for part of this, called the drug war.

BS, only a small portion of black fathers in this country are in prison, There are LOTS of black fathers who CHOOSE not to be involved in their kids' lives.

Besides that, here's an idea, if drugs are illegal and you now they are illegal, don't do them. DUH!!!

Whites do drugs at a higher rate than blacks. Yet blacks are arrested more often for possession.

What does that tell you?

That tells me that the drug laws need to be rescinded. The criminalization of the possession and use of drugs is ridiculous. All drug use should be decriminalized. The criminal misuse of drugs though should be punished heavily.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The playing field hasn't been....and is still not....even.

And it never will be. Rich people have advantages that I will never have. Progressives are making the disparity worse. Taxes don't affect the rich, they affect the middle class. The sooner people figure that out the better we will all be.

Fine, then the rich won't mind if they're increased?

When will you understand that the rich only pay those taxes that they wish to. They WRITE the tax laws man. Thus, whenever a rich person says they are make the rich pay their "fair share" they are lying. The middle class is the group that pays the taxes.

That's what busts me up about rich Democrats who claim they would be thrilled to pay a higher tax rate. Is there something preventing them from doing so?

 

[GaryDog]

Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.

Which only makes sense, it is MUCH easier to rise out poverty as a two income household than as a one household income. So that right there tells you one of the root causes of the issue. black fathers don't raise their families.

There's a very big cause for part of this, called the drug war.

BS, only a small portion of black fathers in this country are in prison, There are LOTS of black fathers who CHOOSE not to be involved in their kids' lives.

Besides that, here's an idea, if drugs are illegal and you now they are illegal, don't do them. DUH!!!

Whites do drugs at a higher rate than blacks. Yet blacks are arrested more often for possession.

What does that tell you?

That tells me that the drug laws need to be rescinded. The criminalization of the possession and use of drugs is ridiculous. All drug use should be decriminalized. The criminal misuse of drugs though should be punished heavily.

Indeed, the drug war is a farce, and has long-since been lost. On top of that, it's a case-study in producing legislation with racist outcomes.

 

[GaryDog]

The playing field hasn't been....and is still not....even.

And it never will be. Rich people have advantages that I will never have. Progressives are making the disparity worse. Taxes don't affect the rich, they affect the middle class. The sooner people figure that out the better we will all be.

Fine, then the rich won't mind if they're increased?

When will you understand that the rich only pay those taxes that they wish to. They WRITE the tax laws man. Thus, whenever a rich person says they are make the rich pay their "fair share" they are lying. The middle class is the group that pays the taxes.

I do understand this, hence I'm all for rewriting the tax laws so that the hedge fund managers aren't taxed like single mothers.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Which only makes sense, it is MUCH easier to rise out poverty as a two income household than as a one household income. So that right there tells you one of the root causes of the issue. black fathers don't raise their families.

There's a very big cause for part of this, called the drug war.

BS, only a small portion of black fathers in this country are in prison, There are LOTS of black fathers who CHOOSE not to be involved in their kids' lives.

Besides that, here's an idea, if drugs are illegal and you now they are illegal, don't do them. DUH!!!

Whites do drugs at a higher rate than blacks. Yet blacks are arrested more often for possession.

What does that tell you?

That tells me that the drug laws need to be rescinded. The criminalization of the possession and use of drugs is ridiculous. All drug use should be decriminalized. The criminal misuse of drugs though should be punished heavily.

Indeed, the drug war is a farce, and has long-since been lost. On top of that, it's a case-study in producing legislation with racist outcomes.

Mayhaps you should look the word "racism" up in the dictionary. It doesn't mean half of the things you claim it does.

The war on drugs, much like the war on poverty, has been a complete failure though.

 

[westwall]

Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.

Which only makes sense, it is MUCH easier to rise out poverty as a two income household than as a one household income. So that right there tells you one of the root causes of the issue. black fathers don't raise their families.

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. When I was first starting out in the workforce as a teen, I encountered a lot of old blacks about to retire who came from huge families--10,12, 16 kids--and the parents had been together so something changed in the black community that started destroying many black nuclear families. Maybe it is welfare. Maybe it is something else IDK.

Right, it can't be 300 years of slavery, 100 years of disenfranchisement from society and the polls, along with 45 years of systematically patrolling slums to arrest black men for working the one occupation that many of them have access to thanks to racist restrictive residential covenants, etc. It has to be welfare.

If you thought about your line of reasoning for longer than 10 seconds, you'd see how flawed it is.

Look at Africa dude. The continent is one of the wealthiest on the planet and it is primarily a festering poophole. It ain't slavery from over 100 years ago that is keeping the black people down, it is their leaders (who profit from the misery) who benefit from keeping them culturally, and socially backwards. Get the blacks out of their self imposed ghetto's and they blossom.

 

[320 Years of History]

Taxes don't affect the rich, they affect the middle class.

Excuse me? Is that meant to be a qualitative or quantitative assertion?



(click the pic for the source article)

Qualitative or quantitative, you find me someone, I don't care how rich they are, who doesn't consider paying hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in taxes as "affecting them." I don't care how rich one is; everyone can find something else to do with that kind of money rather than pay it to one or several governmental entities as taxes.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.

Which only makes sense, it is MUCH easier to rise out poverty as a two income household than as a one household income. So that right there tells you one of the root causes of the issue. black fathers don't raise their families.

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. When I was first starting out in the workforce as a teen, I encountered a lot of old blacks about to retire who came from huge families--10,12, 16 kids--and the parents had been together so something changed in the black community that started destroying many black nuclear families. Maybe it is welfare. Maybe it is something else IDK.

Right, it can't be 300 years of slavery, 100 years of disenfranchisement from society and the polls, along with 45 years of systematically patrolling slums to arrest black men for working the one occupation that many of them have access to thanks to racist restrictive residential covenants, etc. It has to be welfare.

If you thought about your line of reasoning for longer than 10 seconds, you'd see how flawed it is.

Look at Africa dude. The continent is one of the wealthiest on the planet and it is primarily a festering poophole. It ain't slavery from over 100 years ago that is keeping the black people down, it is their leaders (who profit from the misery) who benefit from keeping them culturally, and socially backwards. Get the blacks out of their self imposed ghetto's and they blossom.

That is true, blacks who have made it to the suburbs are substantially better off than inner city blacks.

 

[GaryDog]

Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.

Which only makes sense, it is MUCH easier to rise out poverty as a two income household than as a one household income. So that right there tells you one of the root causes of the issue. black fathers don't raise their families.

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. When I was first starting out in the workforce as a teen, I encountered a lot of old blacks about to retire who came from huge families--10,12, 16 kids--and the parents had been together so something changed in the black community that started destroying many black nuclear families. Maybe it is welfare. Maybe it is something else IDK.

Right, it can't be 300 years of slavery, 100 years of disenfranchisement from society and the polls, along with 45 years of systematically patrolling slums to arrest black men for working the one occupation that many of them have access to thanks to racist restrictive residential covenants, etc. It has to be welfare.

If you thought about your line of reasoning for longer than 10 seconds, you'd see how flawed it is.

Look at Africa dude. The continent is one of the wealthiest on the planet and it is primarily a festering poophole. It ain't slavery from over 100 years ago that is keeping the black people down, it is their leaders (who profit from the misery) who benefit from keeping them culturally, and socially backwards. Get the blacks out of their self imposed ghetto's and they blossom.

I don't think you have the first idea what you're talking about when you examine African history.

 

[westwall]

The playing field hasn't been....and is still not....even.

And it never will be. Rich people have advantages that I will never have. Progressives are making the disparity worse. Taxes don't affect the rich, they affect the middle class. The sooner people figure that out the better we will all be.

Fine, then the rich won't mind if they're increased?

When will you understand that the rich only pay those taxes that they wish to. They WRITE the tax laws man. Thus, whenever a rich person says they are make the rich pay their "fair share" they are lying. The middle class is the group that pays the taxes.

That's what busts me up about rich Democrats who claim they would be thrilled to pay a higher tax rate. Is there something preventing them from doing so?

Of course not. Buffet owes the the government tens of millions if not hundreds of millions in taxes. There is no reason why he should be continuing to bleat about how the rich need to pay more when he won't even pay that which he legitimately owes.

The same is true for all of these super rich who donate their money to the Foundations that they set up. The money is still theirs, it is just a legal fiction that they have given it away. It is disgusting and it shows that the effort to dumb down the citizenry of the USA has been successful because they actually believe the nonsense.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Taxes don't affect the rich, they affect the middle class.

Excuse me? Is that meant to be a qualitative or quantitative assertion?



(click the pic for the source article)

That is true of course, but the point is the top 1% pay a lot of the taxes just by virtue of having a lot of the wealth, but as a percentage of their wealth they pay far less than the middle class.

In fact the regressive tax plan we have is actually a bell curve with the percentage paid by both the poor and the wealthy being very low and the middle class paying a higher percentage.

 

[GaryDog]

Poverty rate for married blacks is only slightly higher than that for married whites.

Which only makes sense, it is MUCH easier to rise out poverty as a two income household than as a one household income. So that right there tells you one of the root causes of the issue. black fathers don't raise their families.

Or the welfare system incentivizes out of wedlock births. When I was first starting out in the workforce as a teen, I encountered a lot of old blacks about to retire who came from huge families--10,12, 16 kids--and the parents had been together so something changed in the black community that started destroying many black nuclear families. Maybe it is welfare. Maybe it is something else IDK.

Right, it can't be 300 years of slavery, 100 years of disenfranchisement from society and the polls, along with 45 years of systematically patrolling slums to arrest black men for working the one occupation that many of them have access to thanks to racist restrictive residential covenants, etc. It has to be welfare.

If you thought about your line of reasoning for longer than 10 seconds, you'd see how flawed it is.

Look at Africa dude. The continent is one of the wealthiest on the planet and it is primarily a festering poophole. It ain't slavery from over 100 years ago that is keeping the black people down, it is their leaders (who profit from the misery) who benefit from keeping them culturally, and socially backwards. Get the blacks out of their self imposed ghetto's and they blossom.

That is true, blacks who have made it to the suburbs are substantially better off than inner city blacks.

And until about a generation ago, there were concerted, blatant attempts by governments, realtors, and private citizens to ensure that blacks were never given the chance to settle outside of the inner city, no matter their means.

1920s–1948: Racially Restrictive Covenants

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/g...enants-stubbornly-stay-on-the-books.html?_r=0