Almalieque wrote:
Private charities cheat the system also, so are you against all charity?
Private charities don't have the power to force me to pay for them to operate. Kind of a massive difference. If a private charity "cheats", and half of the people funding them don't like what they're doing, they lose half of their funding. If the government does this, the half that don't like what it's doing are still forced to fund it.
Quote:
I'm glad that you're open about your discontent of government social support, but you agreed that welfare can be beneficial if done correctly. So, this isn't an inherently flawed concept, you just don't want welfare for reasons completely outside of the reasons that you're preaching why we should get rid of it.
I did not say that welfare can be beneficial "if done correctly". That makes no sense. You're trying to change my argument into one about reform, when I never said that's what I'm proposing. I said that while the existing system of welfare can sometimes be beneficial to some people if they actually do take advantage of the benefits to engage in behaviors that will improve their lives in the future, the number of people who will do that
but would not have done so in the absence of welfare is vastly outweighed by the number of people who will use welfare as a way to simply augment their low productivity labor into a subsistence lifestyle. The net effect is negative, so we should stop doing that.
There's no "if done correctly here". Doing it "correctly" would require not doing it at all. Because what you're doing causes more harm than good. I suppose we could speculate about some method to use government to help the truly needy in some way, but it would look nothing like the currently existing welfare programs (I guess that would be "reform", but far moreso than I think you're talking about when you use the term). And, as I've pointed out several times, if we're looking just at that group, private charities are a far far better solution.
Oh. And I'm curious. What alternative reason do you think I have for wanting to eliminate welfare other than the one I've been arguing? I ask because it's really easy to toss that accusation out there, but much harder to back it up with something rational and concrete.
Quote:
So you first claim that it's a laundry lists of distractions, completely irrelevant to the problem. Then you started to argue bits and pieces of that laundry list. And now you some how forgot that I even made that list?
Laundry list was a reference to something else btw. You keep losing track of what was in reference to what. May I suggest (again) that you try to just respond to one thing at a time rather than lumping several paragraphs by me and then giving one broad and vague response? It's often unclear what you're actually responding to when you do this.
In this particular case, I was asking you for reasons black people vote Democrat that isn't framed as "because the GOP is bad at X, Y, or Z". I was making the point that you keep framing things not in a "why we vote *for* the Dems" but "why we vote *against* the GOP". I made the argument earlier that this method is used to get people to pick choice A, not because it's better than choice B, but because they've just been told a bunch of bad stuff about B and choose A as their only other choice.
I'm asking you to actually look at the platforms of both parties and compare/contrast them. Don't just list off things you don't like about the GOP (or have been told you shouldn't like). And I'm asking you to actually write down why the Dems come down as the better choice for you (or even "for black people" although I don't think you fairly can speak for all of them) than the GOP. Can you do that?
Quote:
There is nothing inherently bad about the GOP. As I said, you can be a Black Republican and NOT be an Uncle Tom. You can be a social conservative, for small government,for a strong military, small business type, etc. and not support oppressive policies. Likewise, you can be a Democrat and support oppressive policies, practices and or thoughts and still be labeled an Uncle Tom. Point being, you gave examples of black people thinking specifically about policies that are good for them all while arguing that they aren't thinking about what's good for them, but what they have been told.
First off, let me point out that you've reversed the direction again. I didn't give any examples. You did. And, as I pointed out above, you didn't frame them as "policies that are good for black people" (and thus presumably tied to the Democrats somehow), but as "policies that are bad for black people" (and in your mind tied somehow to Republicans). You told me what black people didn't like (privatization of public schools and gutting of the VRA). You told me about things that disproportionately harm black people (stop and frisk, searches, police stops, arrests, etc). What you have not actually done yet in this thread is tell me a positive thing that Democrats do that you think actually helps black people.
Secondly, when you can't actually explain why those policies are good/bad for black people, then it's pretty reasonable to conclude that you didn't think about it and derive those answers, but are repeating something you were told. Right? If you'd gone through the mental process of deciding that X is good for black people and Y is bad for black people, you should easily be able to write down that process. But you have steadfastly refused to do anything remotely close to this. So yeah, I'm going to go with "just repeating what you've been told".
Quote:
I'm not denying any stigma against any black Republican. Part of the reason why that stigma exist is because the black Republicans that are public tend to say stuff like the ACA is the worst thing since slavery.
Has it occurred to you that maybe they are correct?
Edited, May 7th 2015 7:14pm by gbaji