GOP wary of health law repeal push in fall races

[T-TownVol]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I'm not saying it is so much racial animosity as it is using race as a proxy for underclass. The better blacks and minorities do, the more of them there are relative to whites, the more anxious the traditional upper class gets.

Pure stupidity

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I'm not saying it is so much racial animosity as it is using race as a proxy for underclass. The better blacks and minorities do, the more of them there are relative to whites, the more anxious the traditional upper class gets.

This is total horse shat, it doesn't make any sense. The right wants all people to be more self sufficient and prosperous. If they are they rely less on the government (a major sticking point to conservatism). Your post is counter intuitive, but then again I bet you have some conspiracy theory about conservatives to account for that as well.

If you truly believe what you posted above to be true then you must also believe that democrats want the poor to stay poor and be dependent on them for political purposes then right?

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by KB5252

This is total horse shat, it doesn't make any sense. The right wants all people to be more self sufficient and prosperous. If they are they rely less on the government (a major sticking point to conservatism). Your post is counter intuitive, but then again I bet you have some conspiracy theory about conservatives to account for that as well.

If you truly believe what you posted above to be true then you must also believe that democrats want the poor to stay poor and be dependent on them for political purposes then right?

+1

[lawgator1]

The upper class views it as a zero sum game. For every dollar spent on programs delivering good and services to the lower classes, they view that as a dollar out of their pockets in taxes and for which they receive no return.

The debate is whether they get no return.

[droski]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

The upper class views it as a zero sum game. For every dollar spent on programs delivering good and services to the lower classes, they view that as a dollar out of their pockets in taxes and for which they receive no return.

The debate is whether they get no return.

you've never answered my question. if these things help minorities than why has the income gap widened since they have been implemented when it was narrowing before? or by your theory is throwing money at people the definition of helping htem.

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

The upper class views it as a zero sum game. For every dollar spent on programs delivering good and services to the lower classes, they view that as a dollar out of their pockets in taxes and for which they receive no return.

The debate is whether they get no return.

And this is a totally separate argument from that which you put forth earlier and I responded to. Which one do you believe?

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by droski

you've never answered my question. if these things help minorities than why has the income gap widened since they have been implemented when it was narrowing before? or by your theory is throwing money at people the definition of helping htem.

I'm sorry, I meant to address that earlier.

1) Your question assumes that the reasons that the gaps were narrowing before are still in effect today, i.e. that everything else is equal and it is only social spending that has changed. There are so many obvious problems with that threshold assumption that, fundamentally, your question (and theory proposed by it) is untestable.

2) Your question assumes that you are measuring the correct metric when you say the gap was narrowing, and is now expanding. Is that based on means? Medians? Or mode? Also, what is the basis for establishing what the average minority household makes versus a white household? Is it strictly income or is it wealth? The racial wealth gap | OK Policy Blog

3) Even assuming all other factors were constant (whicvh they aren't) and even assuming your basis for comparison was measuring what you think it is (it may not be), that does not mean that the upper class in this country (loosely defiend) does not feel some tension or pressure by the increasing numbers of minorities, both in general population and in power.

Most people, its probably too subtle for them to notice. But when I read some on here harkening back to the "good old days" of personal responsibility, I think it completely fair to characterize such comments as bemoaning the changing nature of (as evidenced by the face of) the country.

Some people are not willing to let go of their stake in "the way it was" (real or imagined) without a fight, or at least a really loud and whining complaint.

Originally Posted by KB5252

And this is a totally separate argument from that which you put forth earlier and I responded to. Which one do you believe?

Refresh me.

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Refresh me.

Originally Posted by lawgator1

I'm not saying it is so much racial animosity as it is using race as a proxy for underclass. The better blacks and minorities do, the more of them there are relative to whites, the more anxious the traditional upper class gets.

First you say it is racial animosity by proxy, the more black people succeed the more the upper class get nervous. This is a charge of pure racism.

Then you come back with another argument that it is actually about the money taken from Peter (upper class) to pay Paul (the poor minorities according to you) and whether they get any benefit from their tax dollars going to others, then you follow that up with the statement that the return is debatable.

I am telling you those are totally separate issues and you were caught in an obvious case of back tracking to cover a ludicrous statement.

[paul1454]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

The upper class views it as a zero sum game. For every dollar spent on programs delivering good and services to the lower classes, they view that as a dollar out of their pockets in taxes and for which they receive no return.

The debate is whether they get no return.

Wow, and all this time I have objected to these expansions because I believe they create a disincentive to earn, move people further and further away from personal responsibility, and are vastly inefficient. I guess I've been wrong this entire time and need to update my views to reflect your distorted stereotype of this segment of the population.

[utvolpj]

We're all just racists that can't understand the subtle messages in our statements? You're a sad, little man LG

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by KB5252

First you say it is racial animosity by proxy, the more black people succeed the more the upper class get nervous. This is a charge of pure racism.

Then you come back with another argument that it is actually about the money taken from Peter (upper class) to pay Paul (the poor minorities according to you) and whether they get any benefit from their tax dollars going to others, then you follow that up with the statement that the return is debatable.

I am telling you those are totally separate issues and you were caught in an obvious case of back tracking to cover a ludicrous statement.

Huh. I guess I don't see those as inconsistent. In fact, to the contrary, they are reflections of the same sentiment.



In its simplest terms:

Black people = poor.

More poor people = more demands on my income via taxes.

More black people = more poor people = greater drain on my resources to redistribute to them.

And to boot ...


Black president is helping out poor black people by taxing me more and allowing the freeloaders even more opportunity to sit home while I work to support them.



Tell me you do not see this thought process out there and I'll shut up. You'd be lying, but if you don't see that going on out there then its hopeless to have a discussion because you are so far divorced from the reality of the mood of a lot of the country that your fantasy will never end.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

The upper class views it as a zero sum game. For every dollar spent on programs delivering good and services to the lower classes, they view that as a dollar out of their pockets in taxes and for which they receive no return.

The debate is whether they get no return.

Do you ever tire of speaking for the motivations of groups you don't belong to?

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

Huh. I guess I don't see those as inconsistent. In fact, to the contrary, they are reflections of the same sentiment.



In its simplest terms:

Black people = poor.

More poor people = more demands on my income via taxes.

More black people = more poor people = greater drain on my resources to redistribute to them.

And to boot ...


Black president is helping out poor black people by taxing me more and allowing the freeloaders even more opportunity to sit home while I work to support them.



Tell me you do not see this thought process out there and I'll shut up. You'd be lying, but if you don't see that going on out there then its hopeless to have a discussion because you are so far divorced from the reality of the mood of a lot of the country that your fantasy will never end.

Your first charge was simply that black people being more successful threatens white sensibilities. This is an outright charge of racism. Then you follow it up by saying the rich (white people) and their tax dollars going to support the poor (black people) are the cause of the tension and anger here.

Do you not see that these two statements are counter intuitive? These two charges simply cannot be levied by anyone with any grip on reality, in fact the two statements contradict each other. Black people becoming more successful means there will be less to be a burden on tax payers, republicans want EVERYONE to be successful, more money makers means less tax dollars they spend on the poor. If conservatives are tired of towing the line for the poor why would they complain or begrudge the poor being successful?

I simply asked you which one you believe to be true as these are separate arguments and obviously both cannot be true at the same time.

[lawgator1]

Originally Posted by KB5252

Your first charge was simply that black people being more successful threatens white sensibilities. This is an outright charge of racism. Then you follow it up by saying the rich (white people) and their tax dollars going to support the poor (black people) are the cause of the tension and anger here.

Do you not see that these two statements are counter intuitive? These two charges simply cannot be levied by anyone with any grip on reality, in fact the two statements contradict each other. Black people becoming more successful means there will be less to be a burden on tax payers, republicans want EVERYONE to be successful, more money makers means less tax dollars they spend on the poor. If conservatives are tired of towing the line for the poor why would they complain or begrudge the poor being successful?

I simply asked you which one you believe to be true as these are separate arguments and obviously both cannot be true at the same time.

Exhibit A.

[volinbham]

Originally Posted by lawgator1

In its simplest terms:

Black people = poor.

More poor people = more demands on my income via taxes.

More black people = more poor people = greater drain on my resources to redistribute to them.

And to boot ...


Black president is helping out poor black people by taxing me more and allowing the freeloaders even more opportunity to sit home while I work to support them.

I'll speak for myself - a novel concept I know but you may want to look into it.

Entitlements remove incentives (regardless of race of person receiving entitlements)

Entitlements must be paid for by people who are motivated to earn (regardless of race)

Growing entitlements reduces the number of people that can pay for entitlements (regardless of race)

A president of any color that wants to rapidly expand entitlements is making promises that 1) worsen dependence of all races and 2) creates a system where the standard of living for all declines.