Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

To add to my last response to gnarley: I believe that blacks are as capable of learning and are just as intelligent as anyone else. Their propensity to drop out of school is a personality trait of the individuals. There is no excuse for a person to opt out of education and then complain they are being discriminated against in the job world. That is so much horse puckey.

 

[Erand7899]

To add to my last response to gnarley: I believe that blacks are as capable of learning and are just as intelligent as anyone else. Their propensity to drop out of school is a personality trait of the individuals. There is no excuse for a person to opt out of education and then complain they are being discriminated against in the job world. That is so much horse puckey.

The major reason that most kids drop out of school has to do with their inability to comprehend what is being taught because they were failed in the first six years of their public schooling. That is a shared responsibility of their parents and the public schools.

When public schools are proud that 76% of their fourth grade students can read at grade level, and that 72% of their third grade students can compute math at their grade level, you know you have a problem. They are failing at least one quarter of their charges, and are creating disfunctional adults.

 

[dnsmith35]

To add to my last response to gnarley: I believe that blacks are as capable of learning and are just as intelligent as anyone else. Their propensity to drop out of school is a personality trait of the individuals. There is no excuse for a person to opt out of education and then complain they are being discriminated against in the job world. That is so much horse puckey.

The major reason that most kids drop out of school has to do with their inability to comprehend what is being taught because they were failed in the first six years of their public schooling. That is a shared responsibility of their parents and the public schools.

When public schools are proud that 76% of their fourth grade students can read at grade level, and that 72% of their third grade students can compute math at their grade level, you know you have a problem. They are failing at least one quarter of their charges, and are creating disfunctional adults.

I do agree that parental emphasis is a great thing to assist school success. But I further blame the teachers who do not accept the fact that some parents either can't or won't help their kids. Therefore it is up to the school system to give them that assistance which the parents do not afford. To say, "it is the fault of lax parental assistance" is a cop out. Face it, not only do some parents not help, some can actually be hostile to the concept to education, and the schoOl system MUST DO WHAT IS NECESSARY.

 

[gnarlylove]

dnsmith, what are your unbiased media sources?

It depends on the issues. For Economic issues the Wall Street Journal or CNN Money (which has been accused of being to the left).

If CNN is accused of left leaning, then how is it unbiased?

The Wall Street Journal is liberal in reporting. "In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo calculated the ideological bias of 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The [Wall Street] Journal was the most liberal, more liberal than NPR or The New York Times. The study did not factor in editorials." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Reporting_bias

So it is verifiable that your "unbiased" journals have biases. Therefore they are not unbiased sources. Since you used all caps when mentioning "unbiased sources" it must mean a lot to you...sadly it's a fact your sources are biased. So I hope you have enough intellectual honesty to come to terms with the disjunct between your false perceptions and reality.

It sounds like you need advice on (as-close-as-possible to) unbias sources. My advice is you can commonly find largely unbiased reports in government releases (like Congressional Budget Office), declassified documents (from decades ago or recent leaks), international bodies (like CERN, World Bank) and peer-reviewed journals (like those published by Council on Foreign Relations who publish phenomenal work in economics).

Your idea of unbiased sources is really disturbing.

So the question becomes why believe the bias you read and not some elses? Because yours are factual? Good answer. We can verify that too. If we return to the reason we are discussing this, you were alluding that the rich do not benefit from government aide. That is factually verifiable claim and turns out to be absolutely false. Let me post some research for you to scan regarding the overwhelming aide that the rich receive from public funds:

"About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006."

This coming from the CATO institute. The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses | Cato Institute

"To clarify what is and isn’t corporate welfare, a “no-bid” Iraq contract for the prestigious Halliburton, would not be considered corporate welfare because the government technically directly receives some good or service in exchange for this expenditure. Based on the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) findings of $1.4 billion of overcharging and fraud"

Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

This site provides numerous citations of unbiased reporting and numbers regarding how the rich benefit as the poor lag far behind. But ask yourself, do the rich need welfare? Are they the one's that have to decide between taking a lunch or going without so that her son doesn't have to do without?

So the rich, despite their superior talent, receive more government aide than low income and poverty-stricken who desperately need it. Is this how you understand welfare from CNN and WSJ? In case you don't trust anything other than WSJ, they too identify corporate welfare as factually far larger than low income welfare. Review & Outlook: The Corporate Welfare State - WSJ.com

Our disagreement arises out of how you view the human. You clearly don't think humans have inherent value. That money determines their value. Why do you think this?

ROTFLMAO! In fact I view humans in a more sympathetic manner than you do. It is the basis of my basic liberal positions. Perhaps it was my having lived in 3rd world countries, but my compassion for humans stems from my experiences with truly poor people rather than the typical relatively poor in the US who tend to be below the government determined poverty line. Having said that, since you actually do not strike me as a liberal based on your posts, but rather a left wing extremists who tend to blur the lines such that you are "liberals with borders" and I am a "liberal without borders."

This is not a competition for who has more compassion. That is a different issue and a personal one that only a misanthrope would decide over a message board. You must have a delicate ego that needs flattery often. So I grant you are greatly more compassionate than me. Even if you are more compassionate than me, that doesn't change what you believe: that poor people deserve/earned their situation and the rich deserve/earned theirs.

Neither is this a competition between countries. Justice is not based on relative comparisons. If you had to decide between Hitler or Stalin, would your analysis of justice conclude that Germany was just? Is that how we should understand inherent human value?

People, if they have inherent value at all (which you distinctly left out of your reply), they should all be treated with dignity. Your concept of justice is skewed to relative justice but lacks an understanding of inherent justice.

The homeless in America may be better off in potential access to sustenance than the poorest African. Is that any way to understand inherent human dignity? What if both suffer malnutrition, preventable and treatable diseases, lack of medical care? Does the one that doesn't get spit (like they do in America) become suddenly deserving of compassion whereas the impoverished American deserves continued malnutrition, poor/no education, diseases and rarely affordable medical care in a land that gives twice as much aide to rich people?

 

[bedowin62]

millions of people desperately try to make it to these shores just for an opportunity to be "exploited" by capitalism; "gaurantees" of rising inequality or not


honestly only the mindless morons on the Left; wallowing in self-hatred for their own country; could come up with such an idiotic thread while people literally die trying to come here

 

[georgephillip]

Those working class communities have been decimated over the past two generations by jails not jobs policies that currently result in more black males under thirty-five without a HS diploma existing in prison instead of the labor force.

When your peers in the black community accuse good students of "acting white", how is the failure of the black community to educate their children my fault?

How is the failure of the black community to educate all their children the fault of those getting rich from the New Jim Crow?
Bystander effect.

"Since its founding, America has depended on a permanent underclass of Black and brown bodies working for little or nothing.

"In 2014, the disproportionately non-white prison population continues this tradition, making next to nothing (often less than $1 an hour) to create products for mass consumption.

"Major entities – Victoria’s Secret, Nike, Starbucks, Microsoft, Nintendo, even the U.S. military — have at different points used prison labor to pump out products we all consume.

"Prisoners are sometimes subjected to heavy metals and toxic chemicals in industries like computer recycling at the expense of their own health.

"Our communities contribute unknowingly to this new Jim Crow through our purchases and our taxes, which are used to pay state-contracted, for-profit prison operators.

"George Zoley, the CEO of for-profit prison company GEO Group, for example, is one of America’s highest paid government 'corrections officers,' making $22 million a year.

"It’s estimated that GEO Group makes 86 percent of its revenue from taxpayers."

Commentary: Fighting Against the New Jim Crow | News | BET

Those who've become rich over the past forty years prospered in part because millions of mostly non-white citizens have been warehoused in prisons, often for non-violent drug offenses.

Still think the rhymes-with-bitch white man had nothing to do with that?

In fact, I question the validity of most of your comments or links. The fact of the matter is, education must be the same for all regardless of race or culture because that is the education needed to succeed no matter the career.

In so far as drug use issues, whether they are violent crimes or not is irrelevant. People who break the law are being irresponsible. Criminality is an undesirable personality trait no matter what the race is, so stuff that up your excremental orifice.

In so far as Jim Crow, having observed many successful blacks with parallel careers to myself, there was nothing which kept them back to include race or culture.

Your accusations of anti-black issues with the military is decades old and no longer true, at least not since I have been aware in 1961.

As to blacks being statistically more likely to go to prison reflects on the likely criminality. Being poor or culturally different is no excuse for criminality. Dropping out of school is also not an acceptable excuse for failure. Those issues are self responsibility issues, not racial issues.

The fact that we have had racist issues over our history, and in accordance with what successful blacks like Bill Cosby, have said, it really does not apply today. So when you talk about institutional or personal racism, be aware that I am aware of reality as it is today, and will never be concerned with past issues.

To recap, all racist and cultural excuses are bullshit today. The individual needs the ambition, motivation, and ability, all of which are not excuses in this day and age and so long as blacks or other culturally different people whine and cry that our education system is not tailored to their culture, also miss the reality of the situation that minorities must adapt to the world in which they live. Your left wing extremism is bullshit.

I am 78 and have lived with the old Jim Crow issues and know for a fact that things are no longer what you and your left wing citations say. Especially this one which says, "The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity, cohesiveness and diffusion of responsibility. Bystander effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As a Ed.S graduate Psychologist, I understand all of the so called issues, and tell you they are little more than left wing extremist propaganda.

As a liberal, who respects all races and cultures, good public education, universal medical care, welfare for the truly needy, and respect for all humanity NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE. I challenge you to be as truly liberal as I instead of being a left wing extremist.

More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.

Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.

Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.

To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.

 

[georgephillip]

millions of people desperately try to make it to these shores just for an opportunity to be "exploited" by capitalism; "gaurantees" of rising inequality or not


honestly only the mindless morons on the Left; wallowing in self-hatred for their own country; could come up with such an idiotic thread while people literally die trying to come here

How many are dying to come here because of NAFTA?

 

[kaz]

We know you don't like the government. But what is the government? The government operates according to the interests of the wealthy. The government is not an end in itself. It is a means, a mechanism used by the wealthy to secure their wealth and expand it. The government makes you mad because it is used against your interests. The interests it disfavors are yours. The interests if favors is the rich and the rich like it that way. So you're disagreement with how the government operates is one caused by the near unanimous preference to favor the rich.

Therefore the government is secondary to the primary concern of who actually operates the government.

Dude, I'm rich, so you're FOS. Sorry man. I'm a rich business owner who lives in a wealthy area. The government favors people who want control. That includes some wealthy, some corporations. It also includes special interests like teachers and other unions, environmentalists, liberal womens and minority groups. They all lobby and buy government.

The government doesn't act in my interest, but that is because i believe in freedom. Liberty. I don't want favors from government. But your contention it's just for the wealthy is crap. And as a liberal, you want bigger government, which shows that your belief it's for the wealthy is a lie. If you really believed that, you'd be a small government libertarian like me. And for the same reason, to limit government power.

Definitely appreciate and respect your honest reply. Socio-economic status helps determine what is thinkable and what is not.

But I'd ask you do you think money should determine how people think? Or should empirical reality should determine that?

I believe there should be a common ground on which all people can interact but if you grant money with such power (to radically determine your beliefs) than science and most empirical investigation becomes an exercise for the wealthy, not humanity.

So should the world reflect wealth or humans?

The matter of achieving freedom is a question about conditions. People cannot be free who lack essentials like water. And if your standard of freedom stays abreast of the wealth generated here in America, then people who lack electric and transportation are far less free than those with easy access. So should some people be less free while others accumulate all the freedom (the freedom from prosecution).

But personally I'm an anarchist. No government authority should exist without justifying it's existence and I doubt much of the government can be justified. But we don't live in that world and the one we do often abuses low income just because they are poor--this is no justification. So I think we need to protect the rights of all because once you allow some to be abused openly, than it's a slippery slope to abusing someone you care about because of some failure or flaw they allegedly have. Allowing people to survive, be treated fairly...now this is real freedom.

I'm not sure why you're asking a libertarian those questions. I want government limited to only those functions which only government can do. Primarily the police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. All citizens benefit from those things equally. There is no wealth envy or redistribution, no buying schemes.

When you say things like should the world reflect wealth or humans, I have no idea what that means in the context of my ideology. The government should be limited to maximize liberty because government is the greatest threat and infringer of our liberty. Can you rephrase the question in that context so it makes sense to me regarding what I think?

 

[bedowin62]

millions of people desperately try to make it to these shores just for an opportunity to be "exploited" by capitalism; "gaurantees" of rising inequality or not


honestly only the mindless morons on the Left; wallowing in self-hatred for their own country; could come up with such an idiotic thread while people literally die trying to come here

How many are dying to come here because of NAFTA?

are people dying to get here or not leftard?
it really is that simple

 

[kaz]

It tells us the rich rule this government just as they have every government since the first surpluses thousands of years ago.

Government isn't the problem.

The rich are.

Duh, I want more government. Why? It's controlled by the rich, so I want more of it. Um ... so you want to make the rich ... more ... powerful? Say what?

Liar, you don't believe that. If you did, you would not fight for bigger government. It's clearly just your talking point. You never noticed it makes no sense.

 

[kaz]

Or does electricity violate your free market fundamentalism?

So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...

It's the endless game you leftists play. Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State. You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.

You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.

"TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia."

How many Marxists have you known?
Did any originate in Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina?
Did they have to forsake religion to get electricity?
Righties like you need to learn the difference between big business and big government.

Non-sequitur

 

[georgephillip]

So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...

It's the endless game you leftists play. Oh, well you want roads, you get a welfare State. You want police, you get confiscatory taxes.

You're FOS, there is no reason wanting my wanting a limited government justifies you getting an unlimited one.

"TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia."

How many Marxists have you known?
Did any originate in Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina?
Did they have to forsake religion to get electricity?
Righties like you need to learn the difference between big business and big government.

Non-sequitur

Congratulations.
You spelled it correctly.
Now learn its correct meaning.

 

[kaz]

"TVA's service area covers most of Tennessee, portions of Alabama, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and small slices of Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia."

How many Marxists have you known?
Did any originate in Tennessee, Alabama, or North Carolina?
Did they have to forsake religion to get electricity?
Righties like you need to learn the difference between big business and big government.

Non-sequitur

Congratulations.
You spelled it correctly.
Now learn its correct meaning.

I used it correctly. Now learn to read so you can address what I said, not what I didn't say.

 

[georgephillip]

Non-sequitur

Congratulations.
You spelled it correctly.
Now learn its correct meaning.

I used it correctly. Now learn to read so you can address what I said, not what I didn't say.

What is it you think you said?

 

[kaz]

Congratulations.
You spelled it correctly.
Now learn its correct meaning.

I used it correctly. Now learn to read so you can address what I said, not what I didn't say.

What is it you think you said?

It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time? There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said. I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.

 

[dnsmith35]

dnsmith, what are your unbiased media sources?

It depends on the issues. For Economic issues the Wall Street Journal or CNN Money (which has been accused of being to the left).[/quote]I SAID they were accused, I did not say they were. But now I see part of your problem, you can't understand straight English.

The Wall Street Journal is liberal in reporting. "In a 2004 study, Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo calculated the ideological bias of 20 media outlets by counting the frequency they cited particular think tanks and comparing that to the frequency that legislators cited the same think tanks. They found that the news reporting of The [Wall Street] Journal was the most liberal, more liberal than NPR or The New York Times. The study did not factor in editorials." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journal#Reporting_bias

So it is verifiable that your "unbiased" journals have biases. Therefore they are not unbiased sources. Since you used all caps when mentioning "unbiased sources" it must mean a lot to you...sadly it's a fact your sources are biased. So I hope you have enough intellectual honesty to come to terms with the disjunct between your false perceptions and reality.[/quote]Some say they are biased, but aside Daily Kos, Mother Jones et all, they are not left wing. Liberal or Moderate is fine with me, and they tend to tell the story before the commentary, which I told you I ignore.

It sounds like you need advice on (as-close-as-possible to) unbias sources. My advice is you can commonly find largely unbiased reports in government releases (like Congressional Budget Office),

I do use the CBO for government information, as I also read the Bureau of Labor and some other Govt sources but I also treat them with a grain of salt because they are sometimes as biased as the NYTimes. I trust the world bank as far as I can throw them. (A classmate of mine made his career with them and he made me aware of their biases. I could care less what disturbs you, but I sift the garbage and throw out the commentary which actually has no place in the news.

So the question becomes why believe the bias you read and not some elses? Because yours are factual? Good answer. We can verify that too. If we return to the reason we are discussing this, you were alluding that the rich do not benefit from government aide. That is factually verifiable claim and turns out to be absolutely false. Let me post some research for you to scan regarding the overwhelming aide that the rich receive from public funds:

Factually verifiable from whom? A government source?

"About $59 billion is spent on traditional social welfare programs. $92 billion is spent on corporate subsidies. So, the government spent 50% more on corporate welfare than it did on food stamps and housing assistance in 2006."

My lord, do you believe that? The government spends almost $500 billion a year on various safety net programs to include food stamps, Medicaid, direct aid, extension of unemployment etc etc etc. Looks like your source is not a good one. But yes, the government does spend corporate subsidies, like to solar energy companies that go bankrupt, supporting key industries the that are critical to governmental functions. I agree they should, but they are not but about 20% of your "verifiable sources" tell you. BTW, the CATO institute is very RW in bias.

"To clarify what is and isn’t corporate welfare, a “no-bid” Iraq contract for the prestigious Halliburton, would not be considered corporate welfare because the government technically directly receives some good or service in exchange for this expenditure. Based on the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) findings of $1.4 billion of overcharging and fraud"

That distresses me too, but are you sure your source is correct? The one below is not Verifiable? No, erroneous.

Think by Numbers » Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

This site provides numerous citations of unbiased reporting and numbers regarding how the rich benefit as the poor lag far behind. But ask yourself, do the rich need welfare? Are they the one's that have to decide between taking a lunch or going without so that her son doesn't have to do without?

Since that site is obviously incorrect, why would you trust it?

So the rich, despite their superior talent, receive more government aide than low income and poverty-stricken who desperately need it. Is this how you understand welfare from CNN and WSJ? In case you don't trust anything other than WSJ, they too identify corporate welfare as factually far larger than low income welfare.

Factually? I think not. Do a little research. I always do before I believe any source.

Our disagreement arises out of how you view the human. You clearly don't think humans have inherent value. That money determines their value. Why do you think this?

I said, ROTFLMAO! In fact I view humans in a more sympathetic manner than you do. It is the basis of my basic liberal positions. Perhaps it was my having lived in 3rd world countries, but my compassion for humans stems from my experiences with truly poor people rather than the typical relatively poor in the US who tend to be below the government determined poverty line. Having said that, since you actually do not strike me as a liberal based on your posts, but rather a left wing extremists who tend to blur the lines such that you are "liberals with borders" and I am a "liberal without borders."

This is not a competition for who has more compassion. That is a different issue and a personal one that only a misanthrope would decide over a message board. You must have a delicate ego that needs flattery often.

It has nothing to do with ego, but rather the insulting way you accused me of not having compassion for the poor, which of course is a lot of BS.

So I grant you are greatly more compassionate than me. Even if you are more compassionate than me, that doesn't change what you believe: that poor people deserve/earned their situation and the rich deserve/earned theirs.

You still do not understand English if you believe that crap.

Neither is this a competition between countries. Justice is not based on relative comparisons. If you had to decide between Hitler or Stalin, would your analysis of justice conclude that Germany was just? Is that how we should understand inherent human value?

I have never suggested that. What I said, and you obviously did not understand the language in which I expressed it, is, "the poorest people on this earth deserve our aid before we start to improve the life style of the "relatively poor" in any other country. If you can't understand that you do not have the compassion for the poor you are trying to imply you have. My concept of justice is, if you break the law you deserve to be punished, period.

The homeless in America may be better off in potential access to sustenance than the poorest African.

The homeless in America is a minute % of our people, and I have compassion for them and help them in any way possible

.Is that any way to understand inherent human dignity?

Certainly not the way you think I do.

What if both suffer malnutrition, preventable and treatable diseases, lack of medical care? Does the one that doesn't get spit (like they do in America) become suddenly deserving of compassion whereas the impoverished American deserves continued malnutrition, poor/no education, diseases and rarely affordable medical care in a land that gives twice as much aide to rich people?

Did you fail to read where I believe in universal medical care? Or are you just too ignorant to understand what you read.

I shall reiterate, when I have a specific amount of money to give, I will give it to a charity which helps the least wealthy people in the world before I give it to someone who is relatively poor in that they are less wealth than those who have more wealth. That should be easily understood, unless you are totally unfeeling toward the least of our human brethren.

If you choose to believe that people should not be held responsible for their actions you are a lost cause to humanity. If you choose to believe that adding some dignity to someone who is relatively poor instead of someone who is destitute with no food or means to get it, but instead can be fed by local food pantry or "soup kitchen". That is the difference between, you have no compassion for the poverty you can't see, but would rather improve the life style of the relative poor.

That said, there are a very small % of our population who slip through the safety net. We should take care of them before the above described relative poor.

One of our problems in the US is, we don't have a consistent solution to handle those who slip through the net. Most of our homeless people have mental issues, some of whom I know, but can't get help for simple reasons the government does not recognize. Many years ago, a man wealthy from construction industry offered the city of Atlanta to build a series of small "efficiency" apartments on his own land in what ever number was required to handle the homeless. The city of Atlanta turned him down because the size did not meet code for the size per individual inhabitant. So instead he built another luxury development and made a few more million $$$s. I see that as abject stupidity. Or the homeless person who can't get food stamps because he has no physical address. Or the government rules which require the housing authority to evict a person for even minor and non habituation drugs. There are technicalities such as the current federal laws which prohibit putting a mentally ill homeless person in an institution which will house him/her and feed them. I see those issues as the lack of compassion for the truly needy.

What distresses me also are the left wing extremists who try to judge those of us really trying to help the truly needy instead of helping fewer to a level of dignity. Fortunately for us we have a Capitalist Economic system, albeit a regulated one, which allows our government to collect sufficient revenues to address many of the social needs of our less fortunate citizens. Unfortunately countries like India do not have such a system, mainly because of the population exceeding their fiscal potential, thus they need help more than the absolute majority of US people in poverty. The welfare system in India is private, middle class Indian families (certainly not as well off as our lower middle class) hire several servants which tends to be all some of those poor can get. There are some free clinics, enough to tend to maybe half a million people country wide in a country of 1 billion people. Some people who sound like you wail and cry about us off shoring some labor intensive jobs which in the US at minimum wage makes the output uncompetitive, even though studies show that between 1 and 1.7 jobs are created in the US with minimal wage loss for every job outsourced. I cannot abide the phony liberals who wail about that.

So to recap, I do have compassion for the poor, the poor of the whole world, not just the relative poor in the US, but the truly poor in the entire world, to whom I give a couple of $1,000 a month when I can dig it up. I support the entire costs of a small foster home in Tamil Nadu run by a Catholic order, to include utilities, food, school books and supplies and the needs of the staff who get no salary. When you accuse me of no human compassion it is obvious you have your head firmly implanted in your excremental orifice.

 

[georgephillip]

I used it correctly. Now learn to read so you can address what I said, not what I didn't say.

What is it you think you said?

It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time? There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said. I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.

What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"

Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?

Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?

 

[dnsmith35]

How is the failure of the black community to educate all their children the fault of those getting rich from the New Jim Crow?
Bystander effect.

"Since its founding, America has depended on a permanent underclass of Black and brown bodies working for little or nothing.

"In 2014, the disproportionately non-white prison population continues this tradition, making next to nothing (often less than $1 an hour) to create products for mass consumption.

"Major entities – Victoria’s Secret, Nike, Starbucks, Microsoft, Nintendo, even the U.S. military — have at different points used prison labor to pump out products we all consume.

"Prisoners are sometimes subjected to heavy metals and toxic chemicals in industries like computer recycling at the expense of their own health.

"Our communities contribute unknowingly to this new Jim Crow through our purchases and our taxes, which are used to pay state-contracted, for-profit prison operators.

"George Zoley, the CEO of for-profit prison company GEO Group, for example, is one of America’s highest paid government 'corrections officers,' making $22 million a year.

"It’s estimated that GEO Group makes 86 percent of its revenue from taxpayers."

Commentary: Fighting Against the New Jim Crow | News | BET

Those who've become rich over the past forty years prospered in part because millions of mostly non-white citizens have been warehoused in prisons, often for non-violent drug offenses.

Still think the rhymes-with-bitch white man had nothing to do with that?

In fact, I question the validity of most of your comments or links. The fact of the matter is, education must be the same for all regardless of race or culture because that is the education needed to succeed no matter the career.

In so far as drug use issues, whether they are violent crimes or not is irrelevant. People who break the law are being irresponsible. Criminality is an undesirable personality trait no matter what the race is, so stuff that up your excremental orifice.

In so far as Jim Crow, having observed many successful blacks with parallel careers to myself, there was nothing which kept them back to include race or culture.

Your accusations of anti-black issues with the military is decades old and no longer true, at least not since I have been aware in 1961.

As to blacks being statistically more likely to go to prison reflects on the likely criminality. Being poor or culturally different is no excuse for criminality. Dropping out of school is also not an acceptable excuse for failure. Those issues are self responsibility issues, not racial issues.

The fact that we have had racist issues over our history, and in accordance with what successful blacks like Bill Cosby, have said, it really does not apply today. So when you talk about institutional or personal racism, be aware that I am aware of reality as it is today, and will never be concerned with past issues.

To recap, all racist and cultural excuses are bullshit today. The individual needs the ambition, motivation, and ability, all of which are not excuses in this day and age and so long as blacks or other culturally different people whine and cry that our education system is not tailored to their culture, also miss the reality of the situation that minorities must adapt to the world in which they live. Your left wing extremism is bullshit.

I am 78 and have lived with the old Jim Crow issues and know for a fact that things are no longer what you and your left wing citations say. Especially this one which says, "The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity, cohesiveness and diffusion of responsibility. Bystander effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As a Ed.S graduate Psychologist, I understand all of the so called issues, and tell you they are little more than left wing extremist propaganda.

As a liberal, who respects all races and cultures, good public education, universal medical care, welfare for the truly needy, and respect for all humanity NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE. I challenge you to be as truly liberal as I instead of being a left wing extremist.

More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.

Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.

Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.

To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.

Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.

 

[dnsmith35]

What is it you think you said?

It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time? There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said. I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.

What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"

Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?

Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?

You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA. That the push to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.

 

[georgephillip]

"When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you - When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - You may know that your society is doomed.”-Atlas Shrugged

"She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.

"She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.

"He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'

"It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"

Two biographies of Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand never said those words, moron. Those are her critics paraphrasing what she said. In other words, it's total bullshit, just like every other thing you have ever posted.

She wrote those words at an early point in her career:

"The first edition of We the Living contained language which has been interpreted as advocating ruthless elitism: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"[104]

"Robert Mayhew cautions, 'We should not conclude too quickly that these passages are strong evidence of an earlier Nietzschean phase in Ayn Rand’s development, because such language can be strictly metaphorical (even if the result of an early interest in Nietzsche)'[106]"

Ayn Rand