GOP wary of health law repeal push in fall races

[KB5252]

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]

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.

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]

Refresh me.

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]

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? lol: You're a sad, little man LG

 

[lawgator1]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

k:

 

[lawgator1]

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.

k:

All very fine arguments, but it is my impression that the resentment welling up out there is not about the long term disincentive effects of welfare as much as it is "Hey, I work, and they don't."

 

[T-TownVol]

Exhibit A.

so...common sense is your real issue with the conservative

 

[KB5252]

Exhibit A.

Are you really this dense and lost? I was framing my response to the argument upon the context you provided. I sometimes wonder can you really be this much of a ...!

 

[T-TownVol]

All very fine arguments, but it is my impression that the resentment welling up out there is not about the long term disincentive effects of welfare as much as it is "Hey, I work, and they don't."

putting words in people's mouths again are we.....please stop with the talking points and have a freaking original thought

 

[T-TownVol]

Are you really this dense and lost? I was framing my response to the argument upon the context you provided. I sometimes wonder can you really be this much of a shat.

fyp

 

[KB5252]

All very fine arguments, but it is my impression that the resentment welling up out there is not about the long term disincentive effects of welfare as much as it is "Hey, I work, and they don't."

When you sum it all up they are really the same thing. The reason they get upset because "I work and they don't" in your example is because those men and women work to provide for themselves. Not only do they take care of the necessities they require they are forced to provide for those that do not care for themselves.

Nobody is begrudging those that are unable, the problem is we keep making it easier and give more incentive for those that should be working not to.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

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.

+1

Screw actually helping these people!

 

[lawgator1]

Are you really this dense and lost? I was framing my response to the argument upon the context you provided. I sometimes wonder can you really be this much of a ...!

putting words in people's mouths again are we.....please stop with the talking points and have a freaking original thought

As I said earlier, if you will not acknoweldge that the discussions over a beer or driving to work aren't about the resentment towards minorities and the poor because of the perception that they are freeloading versus, gosh darn it, I want them off welfare so that they will succeed, then you are completely lying.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

All very fine arguments, but it is my impression that the resentment welling up out there is not about the long term disincentive effects of welfare as much as it is "Hey, I work, and they don't."

Why would any respectable person not have resentment toward someone who is fully capable of working?

Bizarre!

:alien:

 

[OrangeEmpire]

As I said earlier, if you will not acknoweldge that the discussions over a beer or driving to work aren't about the resentment towards minorities and the poor because of the perception that they are freeloading versus, gosh darn it, I want them off welfare so that they will succeed, then you are completely lying.

What?

Why would any reasonable person not want any person to succeed?

:crazy:

 

[BeecherVol]

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.

k:

It cannot be explained much better than this.^

I am in the middle class. Why would I want to earn my way any higher? VNB nailed it. What is my incentive to?

And why would those in my category or lower want to move up, if the same was gonna happen to them?

Short answer. There is no good reason to.

We must then turn to the Dependant Party for help.

 

[KB5252]

As I said earlier, if you will not acknoweldge that the discussions over a beer or driving to work aren't about the resentment towards minorities and the poor because of the perception that they are freeloading versus, gosh darn it, I want them off welfare so that they will succeed, then you are completely lying.

I'm not going to worry about what the fringe believes. Despite what you think LG not everyone in the republican party or conservatives in general subscribe to the fringe beliefs. Take away the incentive to do nothing and you automatically induce the incentive to be self reliant.

We are allowing a significant portion of those receiving entitlements to abuse the system, yet we go out of our way to find more ways to make it available and expand the number of people that receive them. If you don't see that as a problem then all hope is lost.

 

[rjd970]

As I said earlier, if you will not acknoweldge that the discussions over a beer or driving to work aren't about the resentment towards minorities and the poor because of the perception that they are freeloading versus, gosh darn it, I want them off welfare so that they will succeed, then you are completely lying.

I will acknowledge that the argument is sometimes framed as freeloaders taking advantage, but that certainly isn't the underlying issue for most people arguing that way. My opinion, of course.

As OE said, who wouldn't want everybody to be self-sufficient? These entitlement programs, and the expansion of them, create disincitve to be self-sufficient and everybody recognizes self-sufficiency would be better for everyone.

...And nobody is begrudging those that legitimately need some assistance.

Bringing race into it only clouds the real underlying issue.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I will acknowledge that the argument is sometimes framed as freeloaders taking advantage, but that certainly isn't the underlying issue for most people arguing that way. My opinion, of course.

As OE said, who wouldn't want everybody to be self-sufficient? These entitlement programs, and the expansion of them, create disincitve to be self-sufficient and everybody recognizes self-sufficiency would be better for everyone.

...And nobody is begrudging those that legitimately need some assistance.

Bringing race into it only clouds the real underlying issue.

Super +1

Quit the crying and moaning and fix it......

I don't care what color the person is.

Good grief, if I were born in parts of South American, Europe, Asia etc I would do any thing in my power to come to America and provide for my family. If that meant crossing the border and doing something stupid, I probably would for my families sake.

In the end, there has to be a right way and a wrong way. I feel for every one but entitlements are not the answer.

We live in the greatest country that has ever been on the face of the earth and it comes at a high price. I don't want to lower the bar of excellence.

Ok, now I am getting sappy...... I was going to break out the light on the hill..... but dang.......
There is a price for being great..........

 

[lawgator1]

I will acknowledge that the argument is sometimes framed as freeloaders taking advantage, but that certainly isn't the underlying issue for most people arguing that way. My opinion, of course.

As OE said, who wouldn't want everybody to be self-sufficient? These entitlement programs, and the expansion of them, create disincitve to be self-sufficient and everybody recognizes self-sufficiency would be better for everyone.

...And nobody is begrudging those that legitimately need some assistance.

Bringing race into it only clouds the real underlying issue.

When pressed, and in public, this is the intellectual approach/excuse as to why the Tea Party people will tell you they resent poor people: that they worry about their poor black brethren and the datsardly harm done to them by the Democrats who keep them down with entitlement programs.

But that isn't the true motivation.

We all know it.