Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Naacp Blasts Santorum For Welfare Remarks  
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2208 times:

"At a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa on Sunday, Santorum was talking about entitlement reform when he said, "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

It's strange how nobody had said anything about Black people...the question was about entitlement reform...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ting-blacks-in-entitlement-reform/


Our Returning Champion
49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3069 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2167 times:

I agree in what Santorum wants to achieve.But unfortunately, he just worded all wrong I agree with the NAACP in the way it was presented.


Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlinePu From Sweden, joined Dec 2011, 697 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2126 times:

I think its stupid to pretend entitlement spending and race are not related. Likewise the NAACP criticism is out of place since this is (whether you agree with him or not) what Mr Santorum genuinely believes will help black people.

I just did a very fast google search and according to the US census about 1 in 4 black mothers receive public assistance compared to less than 10 percent for whites. Presumably if Mr Santorum helps people get off entitlements this will actually benefit blacks disproportionately versus whites since blacks are disproportionate recipients of entitlements.

Pu


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4331 posts, RR: 28
Reply 3, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2111 times:

Quoting thegreatRDU (Thread starter):
It's strange how nobody had said anything about Black people...the question was about entitlement reform...

I watched the video. The entirety of it was Santorum talking. So how do we know what the question was?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2046 times:

Quoting thegreatRDU (Thread starter):
"At a campaign stop in Sioux City, Iowa on Sunday, Santorum was talking about entitlement reform when he said, "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."

What he means is that he doesn't want to make Obama's life better by paying him a presidential salary funded by other people's (i.e. taxpayers') money.   



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3283 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (2 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 1972 times:

Well, at least Ricky didn't make any "man-on-dog" sex remarks.

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...103.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

Honestly, I lived in Pennsylvania when he was a U.S. Senator, and he's an complete idiot. He was more interested in "wedge issues" like abortion and gay marriage (to build his credentials with the far-right wingnuts) then he was in economic issues that effect the everyday lives of middle class Pennsylvanians, thus he was voted out of office in the 2006 election. Santorum also spent almost all of his time in Washington DC (residing in Virginia), and spent less than a month in Pennsylvania - while lying and saying his kids were in Pennsylvania and allowing the PA school district where he supposedly resided to spend almost $90000 for "online enrollment" in a "virtual" school for his 6 children..... The voters of Pennsylvania had enough of his antics, and voted Ricky out.



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

Santorum's words were stupidly chosen, but he (and reasonable people) are trying to fight the takeover of this country by stupidity and laziness, and especially those who encourage and facilitate these things.

From the files of “just when you thought they could not be any more stupid” moments, here's this story:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...diploma-might-violate-americans-w/

Quote:
Employers are facing more uncertainty in the wake of a letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warning them that requiring a high school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This is the Obama Administration for you. Requiring a job applicant to be able to read and write and do high-school level math is discrimination!

Now, if not having a HS Diploma is a disability, when will the demands come for disability pension checks for everyone who decided to skive off classes at 16 and hang out on the streets?

The purpose of the Obama Administration is nothing more or less than what Cloward and Pivin advocated 40 years ago. Find every way to get as many people on the dole as possible, so that they will greedily vote for the party that gives them checks and the trend becomes irreversible, and watch the system collapse. We are at the tipping point now, where those people who see government as their baby-daddy will outnumber those of us who have to pay for it.

I know a woman who is a nurse at a nursing home. She''s 70 years old, and she is a kind, attentive lady who cares for people older than herself. She took care of my grandmother for 10 years. She lives in a home with 7 other people - all her children and grandchildren. All are adult age, and NONE of them has a job, and none of them even wants a job according to Mary - they are all on some form of "assistance". Mary is at a loss what to do - she's 70 and is the only one actually earning a paycheck.

In California - a pinnacle of progressiveness for many years, the graduation rate for minorities runs between 50 and 60%. Those who don't graduate don't go on to trade schools and learn to do something useful - they are the type of people who end up like in Mary's household. A culture has been developed that (unlike generations ago), there is no social stigma or shame attached to being a bum, and a leech on society. You are now entitled.

I see very little hope any president will be able to change this trend. The US is screwed. It may one day recover, via a strong backlash by productive members of society saying "enough!", but it will get very very ugly, as required reforms would be antithetical to the propaganda we've been hearing for years, such as only people who are taxpayers or have jobs should have the right to vote. It may require a brand new Constitution. I'm afraid the old one, as brilliant and inspired as it was, has been utterly bastardized and misinterpreted by now enough that the sitting president can chose to ignore it any time he wants to.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4628 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 6):
Santorum's words were stupidly chosen, but he (and reasonable people) are trying to fight the takeover of this country by stupidity and laziness, and especially those who encourage and facilitate these things.

Don't make this about something it isn't.
Santorum made a remark based on preconcieved notions of race and not poverty.
if his attittude is shaped more by race than by econimics then he isn't fit to lead . End of story.


Quit turning it into an Obama battle.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1765 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 6):
Santorum's words were stupidly chosen, but he (and reasonable people) are trying to fight the takeover of this country by stupidity and laziness, and especially those who encourage and facilitate these things.
Quote:




I’m rather tired of all the people who don’t like Romney trying to claim Rick Santorum is not a big government conservative. . .
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/0...overnment-conservative-looks-like/

In the link, a rather large list of dubious votes, including in support of welfare.

Santorum is every bit as statist as Obama. And this is not an exaggeration, he has himself declared that he is not an "individual liberties" type of guy. He is a collectivist through and through, just not the same type we are used to seeing.

[Edited 2012-01-06 16:21:19]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6608 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1758 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 6):
Santorum's words were stupidly chosen, but he (and reasonable people) are trying to fight the takeover of this country by stupidity and laziness, and especially those who encourage and facilitate these things.

Except you miss a few key points.

Many of those who receive aid actually HAVE jobs and do work hard. However, their pay is so little they are still in poverty and thus get benefits. Remember, even some members of the military get food stamps.

The bigger problem you miss is what do we do with the chunk of the population that isn't so bright. Regardless of race, there is a chunk of our population that has an IQ between 75-90. Most of these folks aren't going to be lawyers, doctors, engineers or CEO's. This is nothing new. Our population has always had a sizeable group in this category.

In the past, many of these people could still make an ok living working in lower end service and manufacturing industries. However, now the wage scales in these low end professions have been pushed down so far that many are in poverty, no matter how much they work.

And so far, the only solution conservatives have for these folks is that they need to pay more in taxes and take even deeper paycuts so that America can be "competitive"!!

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 6):
We are at the tipping point now, where those people who see government as their baby-daddy will outnumber those of us who have to pay for it.

Hardly. Only about 1 in 8 households receives any type of welfare (food stamps, welfare, etc). While that number is definitely too high, it's hardly the tipping point you make it out to be. Not to mention that many of the poor don't even vote.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 6):
This is the Obama Administration for you. Requiring a job applicant to be able to read and write and do high-school level math is discrimination!

That's not what the letter is about. Try reading the article again or maybe your high school diploma should be revoked!

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 6):
The US is screwed. It may one day recover, via a strong backlash by productive members of society saying "enough!", but it will get very very ugly, as required reforms would be antithetical to the propaganda we've been hearing for years, such as only people who are taxpayers or have jobs should have the right to vote.

Hardly. If some reasonable reforms were promoted, they would easily pass. The problem is that no one wants reasonable reform. The Democrats don't want reform at all and the Republicans want to gut these programs totally. Neither side is right, so nothing gets fixed and the status quo remains.


User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4331 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 9):
In the past, many of these people could still make an ok living working in lower end service and manufacturing industries. However, now the wage scales in these low end professions have been pushed down so far that many are in poverty, no matter how much they work.

Just curious, but do these low-end professions that have been pushed down so far account for the fact that a majority of those who are in poverty and receiving welfare are in single parent homes that are often times still producing children out-of-wedlock?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

Quoting CasInterest (Reply 7):

Quit turning it into an Obama battle.

Obama is but one cog in the wheel, albeit a big one.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 9):
Hardly. Only about 1 in 8 households receives any type of welfare (food stamps, welfare, etc). While that number is definitely too high, it's hardly the tipping point you make it out to be. Not to mention that many of the poor don't even vote.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...-government-benefits_n_996990.html

[/quote]Nearly half, 48.5 percent, of the population lived in a household that received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2010, according to Census data. Those numbers have risen since the middle of the recession when 44.4 percent lived households receiving benefits in the third quarter of 2008.

The share of people relying on government benefits has reached a historic high, in large part from the deep recession and meager recovery, but also because of the expansion of government programs over the years.[/quote]

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 9):
In the past, many of these people could still make an ok living working in lower end service and manufacturing industries. However, now the wage scales in these low end professions have been pushed down so far that many are in poverty, no matter how much they work.

Which comes back to the issue of trade schools I was talking about. Without a trade school system integrated into public education as an alternative to the University path, you are stuck with mostly uneducated morons who have no useful skills, and often barely know how to read. Naturally, that means a wage of a ditch-digger. But with trade school skills, where you know how to do something, then higher wages are justified.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 9):
That's not what the letter is about. Try reading the article again or maybe your high school diploma should be revoked!

Oh, give me a break. The letter claims that demanding that a person has a minimal amount of intelligence and education (and a HS diploma IS minimal - in many places all you have to do is show up) in order to get a job is somehow unfair. Those demands might have something to do with the fact that the job might involve machinery where you need to be able to read the manual to avoid chopping your foot off. You think that is unreasonable? That's a joke.

Put it this way. If an employer is looking to fill a job which requires no skills whatsoever - a warm body is all that is needed - why would he arbitrarily restrict his choices (and presumable drive up his competitive wage costs) by insisting on a high level of education?

Your argument makes no sense.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 9):
The problem is that no one wants reasonable reform. The Democrats don't want reform at all and the Republicans want to gut these programs totally. Neither side is right, so nothing gets fixed and the status quo remains.

On that we agree, although I would point out that not all Republicans want to gut all those programs. I think Ron Paul does, but not the others.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 9):

Hardly. If some reasonable reforms were promoted, they would easily pass.

On that I have my doubts. Look how long we've been fighting about abortion. Some want no restrictions, some want it completely illegal. A reasonable compromise would be: no restrictions in the 1st trimester, and banned thereafter (or something like that). But I guarantee you they would still bitch.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5478 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1684 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 5):
Honestly, I lived in Pennsylvania when he was a U.S. Senator, and he's an complete idiot. He was more interested in "wedge issues" like abortion and gay marriage (to build his credentials with the far-right wingnuts) then he was in economic issues that effect the everyday lives of middle class Pennsylvanians, thus he was voted out of office in the 2006 election. Santorum also spent almost all of his time in Washington DC (residing in Virginia), and spent less than a month in Pennsylvania - while lying and saying his kids were in Pennsylvania and allowing the PA school district where he supposedly resided to spend almost $90000 for "online enrollment" in a "virtual" school for his 6 children..... The voters of Pennsylvania had enough of his antics, and voted Ricky out.

   Let us hope he gets the full scrutiny that the other candidates have received or still getting. Candidates of his ilk seem to excel at divide and conquer; Like Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burned. While our economy and middle class are devolving Santorum and the others are at their standard bag of tricks, Same sex marriage is blasphemy. Fetus first at all costs even if mother croaks in the process, fetus first even if she was gang banged against her will, fetus first even if the poor kid upon delivery is deaf, dumb, blind and can't play a mean game of pinball! I always felt the plundering and degredation and incompetance under W was as low as we could go. Sadly this lot of candidates may give Heir Bush a run for is money in awfullness.



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21641 posts, RR: 55
Reply 13, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 11):
Put it this way. If an employer is looking to fill a job which requires no skills whatsoever - a warm body is all that is needed - why would he arbitrarily restrict his choices (and presumable drive up his competitive wage costs) by insisting on a high level of education?

Because he knows that in a situation where there are a lot of applicants for a few jobs, he can ensure that he gets the best people by restricting the pool. Saves him the trouble of having to go through the resumes of those who don't have higher education levels. We see this all the time - when jobs are harder to come by, the qualifications for those jobs will increase. The wages will not, however, because the employer knows that if one person doesn't want to work for peanuts, there will most likely be someone with similar qualifications who will, simply due to the large number of applicants and the scarcity of jobs in general.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineGBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1648 times:

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 11):
Which comes back to the issue of trade schools I was talking about. Without a trade school system integrated into public education as an alternative to the University path, you are stuck with mostly uneducated morons who have no useful skills, and often barely know how to read. Naturally, that means a wage of a ditch-digger. But with trade school skills, where you know how to do something, then higher wages are justified.

Dear Mr Dreadnought.

I don't agree with most of what you write, we're at the opposite ends of the political spectrum but on this you've hit the nail on the head. Geography is irrelevent, we have the same issues over here.

Our education system is (thanks to the Blair years where education was technology and target driven) also lacking in trade based learning for those who don't fit the academic mould. There are a few "trade schools" here, the County I live in has such schemes in place but the number of spaces are limited.

it's the best way to break the cycle of families who see the benefits system as a lifestyle choice instead of the safety net it should be. There are very few truly useless people with no hope in this world, sure there are the "ditch diggers" as you put it but if you catch most kids at a young enough age and give them the chance to find what they are good at then give them the chance to leave school with a marketable and certified practical skill then society is the winner.

I came from a single parent home and a mother who considered social security as a career choice. Unlike a lot of kids (most in the same situation) I grew up with I could see from an early age that it was not a good way to live your life. I've spent the last 22 years driving coaches and trucks, I'll never be a millionaire and in some cases have less than the benefit culture brigade but I've never taken a penny in welfare and have got my pride in tact. Everything I have I've worked for.

There are a lot out there like me but there are just as many that need a good push in the right direction. I've seen it myself, part of my old job was taking coach loads of kids from thier schools to the college that provides the construction and auto engineering classes and it really works. Kids who were written off in primary school are now working, some are running thier own small businesses now, employing people and paying into the system instead of taking from it.


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11362 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 1610 times:

Way more white people receive welfare than black people.


So, anyone care to tell me why Santorum singled out blacks? This isn't the first time he's singled out blacks. It is in fact a trend, and the trend suggests it is not accidental.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4331 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
Way more white people receive welfare than black people.

Is that opinion or fact? Because the statistics from the HHS tell a different story than what you perceive to be true.

African-Americans - 33.3%
Whites - 31.2%
Hispanic - 28.8%
Asian - 2.1%
Multi - 1.8%
Native - 1.3%
Unknown - 1%
Hawaiian - 0.6%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/fy2009/tab08.htm



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12564 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1573 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 5):
Well, at least Ricky didn't make any "man-on-dog" sex remarks.

I had heard of this comment, and after reading the linked article, he said that homosexuality was not the same thing as pedophilia or bestiality.

So is the criticism that he put them all in the same sentence?

Marriage today is a sick institution. Alimony should be outlawed except when one partner can prove pain and suffering. I have no idea why homosexuals want in, but given that they do, I have no objection. Perhaps homosexual divorces will lead the system towards an examination of alimony, which would be a good thing IMHO.

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 6):
Santorum's words were stupidly chosen, but he (and reasonable people) are trying to fight the takeover of this country by stupidity and laziness, and especially those who encourage and facilitate these things.


LOL, the fight against stupidity will be led by one who chooses his words stupidly?

Do we want a president that chooses his words stupidly?

Sorry, Mr Khrushchev , what I really meant was...

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 6):
Find every way to get as many people on the dole as possible, so that they will greedily vote for the party that gives them checks and the trend becomes irreversible, and watch the system collapse.

Pretty extreme statement. The opposite of this would be just as extreme: Get as many people off the dole as possible so the rich will continue to fund the party that works for the 1%ers and the trend becomes irreversable and the system collapses.

Seems to me empowering the rich is working out a lot better than empowering the poor these days.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 9):
The bigger problem you miss is what do we do with the chunk of the population that isn't so bright. Regardless of race, there is a chunk of our population that has an IQ between 75-90. Most of these folks aren't going to be lawyers, doctors, engineers or CEO's. This is nothing new. Our population has always had a sizeable group in this category.

In the past, many of these people could still make an ok living working in lower end service and manufacturing industries. However, now the wage scales in these low end professions have been pushed down so far that many are in poverty, no matter how much they work.

And so far, the only solution conservatives have for these folks is that they need to pay more in taxes and take even deeper paycuts so that America can be "competitive"!!

Sorry, in conservative theology, people with low IQs just don't exist, there's just "us" and "lazy people".



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11362 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1557 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 16):
Is that opinion or fact?

It is absolutely true in Iowa. You know, the place where Santorum said it.

And even if it is not true (in your 2008-09 citation) nationwide, it is absolutely the case that most of the recipients of welfare are not black.

There is simply no way around accepting that Santorum chose to and will continue to choose to single blacks out. Accept it, and then ask yourself why.

[Edited 2012-01-07 10:59:14]


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 19, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
Pretty extreme statement. The opposite of this would be just as extreme: Get as many people off the dole as possible so the rich will continue to fund the party that works for the 1%ers and the trend becomes irreversable and the system collapses.

From Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances. "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". (Originally published in The Nation, May 2, 1966).

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/24-4

Quote:
Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be con-strained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level.

The ultimate objective of this strategy--to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income
--will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income. Instead, programs are demanded to enable people to become economically competitive. But such programs are of no use to millions of today's poor.

Their goal is nothing less than a collapse of the existing social and economic system and get everyone on sort of state salary. Hillary Clinton once claimed to be a fan of this strategy, and Obama, while not openly embracing it recently, is certainly a fan.

This strategy was pushed very hard in the 1966 Democratic Convention



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11362 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1541 times:

Dreadnought, can you tell us how your post relates to Santorum? If it's there, I don't understand it. Please clarify.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8841 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1539 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Dreadnought, can you tell us how your post relates to Santorum? If it's there, I don't understand it. Please clarify.

Big picture, man.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12564 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1521 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
It is absolutely true in Iowa. You know, the place where Santorum said it.

Then maybe Santorum should have qualified his statement.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
And even if it is not true (in your 2008-09 citation) nationwide, it is absolutely the case that most of the recipients of welfare are not black.

Had you said that, there'd be no argument, but you didn't.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):

There is simply no way around accepting that Santorum chose to and will continue to choose to single blacks out. Accept it, and then ask yourself why.

Because he thinks racial sterotyping is a winning campaign strategy for him, which again shows he's an idiot.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineredflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4331 posts, RR: 28
Reply 23, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
It is absolutely true in Iowa. You know, the place where Santorum said it.

Ah, okay then. You didn't indicate that your comment was specific to Iowa only. I guess if we're going to cherry-pick statistics, I could certainly point to states where African-Americans are by far the largest majority by a huge margin that receive welfare. Such as the District of Columbia: 99.4%; Delaware: 60.9%; Maryland 77%. You get the point.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
And even if it is not true (in your 2008-09 citation) nationwide, it is absolutely the case that most of the recipients of welfare are not black.

How is it true that most of the recipients of welfare are not African-American when the statistics indicate that overall they otherwise are?



My other home is a Piper Cherokee 180C
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7914 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (2 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting redflyer (Reply 16):
Quoting D L X (Reply 15):
Way more white people receive welfare than black people.

Is that opinion or fact? Because the statistics from the HHS tell a different story than what you perceive to be true.

African-Americans - 33.3%
Whites - 31.2%
Hispanic - 28.8%
Asian - 2.1%
Multi - 1.8%
Native - 1.3%
Unknown - 1%
Hawaiian - 0.6%

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/...8.htm

I think it is a higher percentage of blacks but more whites overall. But according to these percentages, there isn't much of a difference...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
I had heard of this comment, and after reading the linked article, he said that homosexuality was not the same thing as pedophilia or bestiality.

I agree he isn't equating them, but all he's doing is making a slippery slope fallacy. We're arguing homosexuality here, not anything else! They're not mutually inclusive. Could even argue that interracial marriage didn't cause man on dog...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
25 redflyer : The stats from HHS reflect the number of families receiving assistance. For 2009, 1.7 million total received assistance. The percentages are derived
26 D L X : In truth, I did not believe that it was just specific to Iowa. I had read other articles about Santorum's statement (and elsewhere) saying that white
27 FlyPNS1 : Even with a trade school system, you are stuck with a lot of uneducated morons because there aren't nearly enough trade school type jobs to accomodat
28 dreadnought : Actually, do the math. Countries with a healthy manufacturing sector have a good 20-25% of the labor force directly involved in manufacturing. We hav
29 thegreatRDU : Santorum is everything that's wrong with the GOP Here we go again...
30 Post contains images zippyjet : Just another dim bulb clone peddling the SSDD messages: Those evil Welfate lazy folks Fetus tampering is a capital crime Science is athiesm unless it
31 Post contains images DeltaMD90 : I really don't like Santorum at all, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he didn't mean to offend anyone. Stereotypes are very prevalent in our soc
32 avek00 : Indeed, and in America corporations receive far more direct and indirect welfare benefits than people of any color.
33 jcs17 : Agree 100%. In Switzerland and many countries from Europe, for example... Damn, I almost forgot you are from Switzerland, Charles. Trade school and a
34 seb146 : I guess this means nothing: “While an employer is not required to ‘prefer’ a learning-disabled applicant over other applicants with more extensi
35 dreadnought : My point is that Mary (the nurse) is of an older generation - she's still working because she can, and she has some self-respect. But by her own word
36 Mir : Makes perfect sense. And if you read that actual article, the EEOC's letter also makes perfect sense. It's certainly not saying that not having a hig
37 DeltaMD90 : It is the culture, and I believe this is something the NAACP should really be dealing with (regarding the black population, NOT stating it is only a
38 Mir : This is contradictory. In order to spot and stop abuses (which we all agree is a good thing), you have to have rules, and people to enforce them. And
39 seb146 : And my point is: I can do the whole "I know a guy" thing too. Because "Mary" did not have the good sense to kick them out when they turned 18. She ne
40 Post contains images D L X : DeltaMD90, I know you didn't mean any harm by this statement, but I had to flag it to pop it up to the front of people's minds. Look at my stat from
41 Post contains links FlyPNS1 : I think the easier fix is to put tight limits on the amount of time one can receive benefits. Things like welfare and food stamps are meant to be sho
42 D L X : Okay, even if we assumed it was 6 in a family, we'd still be talking about 9% on welfare, and 91% not on welfare. So, 91% of African Americans are NO
43 dreadnought : The problem is your data. You are only looking at one program. There are dozens (hundreds actually) of federal, state and local aid programs. Even th
44 D L X : Feel free to list all of the various programs that black people (and not white people) are taking advantage of that suggest that blacks have a cultur
45 Post contains images N1120A : I cannot believe there are people here defending Santorum. Well, I can, but I'm surprised they are admitting to supporting such racist views. I like t
46 thegreatRDU : My New Hampshire Primary Predictions... Mitt Romney 29% Ron Paul 24% Jon Huntsman 16% Rick Santorum 15% Newt Gingrich 12% Rick Perry 2%
47 DeltaMD90 : Well I have no idea how it works out honestly. My line of thinking is abuses go on and no one sees due to the bureaucracy... Well, I guess I'm in dan
48 zippyjet : Now if it could be the stuff of some advertising. This is the Dems chance to demonstrate how this SOB rolls. Lets see all the GOP candidates fight ea
49 jcs17 : I think that's the capitalist economy in a nut shell. Unfortunately, there are those who cannot be reached and who may be in the underclass. Look, ev
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AFA Blasts CBS Airing Of 9/11 Movie For Profanity posted Mon Sep 4 2006 22:09:31 by AerospaceFan
Santorum Blames National Weather Service For Katri posted Sat Sep 10 2005 23:43:55 by Clickhappy
Pedobear Shows Up For Penn St. Bowl Game posted Tue Jan 3 2012 21:03:16 by jcs17
Suggestions For Short Road Trip France/Italy posted Tue Jan 3 2012 19:20:38 by czbbflier
Euthanasia For The Fed Up? posted Wed Dec 28 2011 09:36:10 by RussianJet
What Did You Get For Christmas? posted Sun Dec 25 2011 09:46:08 by LFutia
Last Minute Inspiration For Christmas Gifts! posted Wed Dec 21 2011 19:24:25 by Checo77
Cairo For New Years - Advise posted Wed Dec 21 2011 00:31:26 by ogre727
Dec 19, 2011 - Judgement Day For Saab Automotive posted Sun Dec 18 2011 19:05:17 by stasisLAX
Best PayGo With Micro Sim In UK For Data posted Wed Jan 12 2011 06:40:43 by mckvakk