Post: #26

That is an excellent point. Not only Vietnamese, but also Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Cuban, most European communities, etc. My own father arrived with a few hundred bucks and built a business from nothing. I also became an entrepreneur............

This self-defeatist mentality in the African-American community stems from the new plantation mentality. It is a cultural issue. The more that the black community blames "The White Man," the more that they enslave themselves mentally and spiritually.
[/quote]

The Japanese, Thai, Cuban, and Euro immigrant experience with "the Man" and the African American experience with "the Man" are two entirely different things: Apples and Oranges.

As a matter of fact there is an argument to be made that part of the "success" of other groups have come because of the efforts and African Americans and often time at their expense.

Post: #27

(03-07-2014 12:28 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  It's more culture than race. Poor whites in Britain behave the exact same as many ghetto blacks in the States. One of my "unpopular opinions" I guess would be that if the welfare state was never enacted that middle class American blacks would have fared better than middle class whites due to their closer ties because of shared hardships. In my opinion, the black community was wrecked by design.

kudos on steering it away from a race thread. That was my intent of using the native canadian example, and including the 'council estate' types in the UK. It seems like when a culture develops an identity/heritage of victimization it keeps itself down. Having an 'oppressor' is the cultural identity and without it they would just be another Canadian or American.

Its sort of like being a femenist, they can never say 'equality mission accomplished' and put down their sword because then they will lose their identity and just be an ugly woman that no one will pay attention to.

Post: #28

(03-07-2014 12:23 PM)Maximun Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:21 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  It's not that liberals have blacks on a leash, it's that conservatives have nothing to offer that's appealing to blacks on the whole. Add in an instance of the Southern Strategy every 4 years and it's no big surprise.

Like what? the same offers they have been accepting for the last 60 years? somehow blacks believe that the solution to theirs problems and misery is more of what they have been accepting for decades, "if is not working keep trying" theme, hispanics, even with the language barrier do better than blacks, you won't see many homeless hispanics or asians dirty on the street like you see blacks, why? the bottom line is family, hispanics like asians have each other backs while blacks kill each other.

There is no political solution to the breakdown of the black family. This is a cultural matter. Voting for one party or another is not going to solve this. We have to learn to distinguish between problems that have political solutions and those that simply don't.

Post: #29

(03-07-2014 12:46 PM)kdolo Wrote:  That is an excellent point. Not only Vietnamese, but also Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Cuban, most European communities, etc. My own father arrived with a few hundred bucks and built a business from nothing. I also became an entrepreneur............

This self-defeatist mentality in the African-American community stems from the new plantation mentality. It is a cultural issue. The more that the black community blames "The White Man," the more that they enslave themselves mentally and spiritually.

Quote:The Japanese, Thai, Cuban, and Euro immigrant experience with "the Man" and the African American experience with "the Man" are two entirely different things: Apples and Oranges.

As a matter of fact there is an argument to be made that part of the "success" of other groups have come because of the efforts and African Americans and often time at their expense.

I would enjoy reading more about this argument.

Post: #30

(03-07-2014 12:47 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  [quote='KorbenDallas' pid='672587' dateline='1394213334']
It's more culture than race. Poor whites in Britain.

Are you so sure ???

Poor whites in Britain are the descendants of Celts and Anglo Saxons

the Upper classes are the descendants of Normans and the Anglo-Saxon elites who inter married with the new bosses - William the Conqueror etc...

Britain is notorious for its lack of social mobility - strict class system.

maybe its "racial" i.e. tribal - after all.......

Post: #31

There are some racial differences, sure, but Britain's lower and lower middle classes as little back as 50 years ago behaved very similarly in manners and values to their "bettors". With regards to black middle class culture look up black wall street and other economic indicators of the 20's-50s. Middle class blacks were doing better than their white counterparts.

Post: #32

(03-07-2014 12:51 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:47 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  [quote='KorbenDallas' pid='672587' dateline='1394213334']
It's more culture than race. Poor whites in Britain.

Are you so sure ???

Poor whites in Britain are the descendants of Celts and Anglo Saxons

the Upper classes are the descendants of Normans and the Anglo-Saxon elites who inter married with the new bosses - William the Conqueror etc...

Britain is notorious for its lack of social mobility - strict class system.

maybe its "racial" i.e. tribal - after all.......

I guess for context I was referring to race as skin color vs. culture/tribe/background/language. Do poor people in Britain still identify that way? "Ah I'm Johnny, I'm poor because 'the man' likes to keep us Anglo Saxons down"

Post: #33

I could be wrong, but maybe the system if slavery made it do that the space masters where doing the father role.

Post: #34

(03-07-2014 12:59 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:51 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:47 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  [quote='KorbenDallas' pid='672587' dateline='1394213334']
It's more culture than race. Poor whites in Britain.

Are you so sure ???

Poor whites in Britain are the descendants of Celts and Anglo Saxons

the Upper classes are the descendants of Normans and the Anglo-Saxon elites who inter married with the new bosses - William the Conqueror etc...

Britain is notorious for its lack of social mobility - strict class system.

maybe its "racial" i.e. tribal - after all.......

I guess for context I was referring to race as skin color vs. culture/tribe/background/language. Do poor people in Britain still identify that way? "Ah I'm Johnny, I'm poor because 'the man' likes to keep us Anglo Saxons down"

What are you talking about celts were around in roman times the anglo Saxons invaded in the 6-8th century and the normans invaded in 1066. Was this a joke of course people don't identify as them as nobody has a clue.
Also are people saying that only whites claim welfare over in the UK because that's simply not true.

Post: #35

(03-07-2014 12:48 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  There is no political solution to the breakdown of the black family. This is a cultural matter. Voting for one party or another is not going to solve this. We have to learn to distinguish between problems that have political solutions and those that simply don't.

It's pretty easy to identify liberal policies that have contributed to the breakdown of the black family (and really, family of all races though the exposure to liberal policies is felt most acutely in inner cities and thus disproportionately impacts blacks).

So why wouldn't elimination/abandonment of those policies help stem the breakdown?

Post: #36

(03-07-2014 01:15 PM)tylerdurden1993 Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:59 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:51 PM)kdolo Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:47 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  [quote='KorbenDallas' pid='672587' dateline='1394213334']
It's more culture than race. Poor whites in Britain.

Are you so sure ???

Poor whites in Britain are the descendants of Celts and Anglo Saxons

the Upper classes are the descendants of Normans and the Anglo-Saxon elites who inter married with the new bosses - William the Conqueror etc...

Britain is notorious for its lack of social mobility - strict class system.

maybe its "racial" i.e. tribal - after all.......

I guess for context I was referring to race as skin color vs. culture/tribe/background/language. Do poor people in Britain still identify that way? "Ah I'm Johnny, I'm poor because 'the man' likes to keep us Anglo Saxons down"

What are you talking about celts were around in roman times the anglo Saxons invaded in the 6-8th century and the normans invaded in 1066. Was this a joke of course people don't identify as them as nobody has a clue.
Also are people saying that only whites claim welfare over in the UK because that's simply not true.

Like Socrates said 'I presume to have no knowledge' it seemed unlikely but I wanted wanted to give Kdolo to some room to enlighten me on it instead of declaring it crazy right away.

Post: #37

(03-07-2014 01:25 PM)assman Wrote:  It's pretty easy to identify liberal policies that have contributed to the breakdown of the black family (and really, family of all races though the exposure to liberal policies is felt most acutely in inner cities and thus disproportionately impacts blacks).

So why wouldn't elimination/abandonment of those policies help stem the breakdown?

I'm not entirely convinced of that. I think at the fundamental level we're dealing with cultural problems. You might argue that if welfare weren't available, a woman might think twice about having an out of wedlock kid. But why would a woman do that whether welfare is available or not? A girl that's been raised right isn't going to have kids with deadbeats that won't stick around.

The reason we had welfare in the first place was to fight widespread poverty. Eliminating it would cause poverty rates to rise. So it's a tradeoff between the lessor of two evils. Plus studies have shown that most people on welfare are not actually abusing it. They are using it as intended, namely as temporary assistance until they can get back on their feet. The whole "welfare queen" thing is a bit of a myth...

http://aattp.org/debunking-reagans-bulls...d-for-all/

Post: #38

(03-07-2014 12:02 PM)playa_with_a_passport Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 12:21 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  It's not that liberals have blacks on a leash, it's that conservatives have nothing to offer that's appealing to blacks on the whole. Add in an instance of the Southern Strategy every 4 years and it's no big surprise.

Even if you think these are good things why would these Republican ideas be popular with any black person that's looking at things from a perspective of rational self-interest?

1) Ending affirmative action. Even if you think it's fair, that's obviously not in the self-interest of a black person and it's certainly not going to be a draw for black voters.

2) Ending Affordable Care Act. Blacks have the worst life-expectancy and are least likely to be insured and have affordable options to health care. Why would voting for the party that wants to take away ACA be attractive?

3) Lowering taxes on the rich. Since blacks are more likely to be poor, why the fuck do they care about lowering taxes on millionaires?

4) De-funding public education. Black kids are more likely to go to fucked up schools, why would they want to vote for the party that hates the NEA?

5) On guns. We all know how many black men die from gunfire in the inner-city. Why are blacks going to vote for the pro-NRA crowd that thinks we need MORE guns.

6) Unemployment insurance. Black unemployment rates are double the white rate. Why vote for the party fights the extension of unemployment benefits?

I'm not making a personal pro/con argument about any of the above. I'm just saying that for an average black American voting from the perspective of rational self-interest, there's just not much to like about Republicans/fiscal Libertarians and conservatives. Gay marriage is about the only area blacks intersect with conservatives.

This pretty much sums it up. I don't buy the whole "Libs tell Blacks what to do meme." Its simply a matter of chosing which shit sandwhich to eat, you'll simply pick the one with less shit.

Also, with the exception of Cosby or maybe even Dr. Carson, the average "Black Conservative" on the public sphere has zero credibility among Blacks. Its quite transparent that they are only talking reckless about Black folk because they are getting a check.

This is a key point. Let's not pretend "Black Conservatives" are somehow more enlightened, or that they "escaped the plantation", because they just went from one extreme to another. You'll never see a black conservative break from the ranks on anything race-related. If someone like Rush said "all you niggers need to be exterminated" tomorrow, Juan Williams wouldn't dare admit that just maybe that was racist.

Post: #39

Progressives don't see blacks as people. They see us as parts of a whole. Kind of like a soldier ant in a colony. As long as you're a good soldier you have nothing to fear. But as soon as you start to see yourself as an individual, and not a cog in the collective machine then you are the enemy. The vitriol comes out. I've been scorned, ridiculed, and been called names. And it's because I have the audacity to not only say, but truly believe that I can think, and do for myself. Since the progressives bought negro "leadership" lock, stock, and barrel, progressives believe that they own us all. And we owe them allegiance. As a black libertarian I'm kind of like a unicorn. A rare creature. I can honestly say I've never been disrespected to my face in discussions with conservatives. I can't say the same for enlightened progressives.

Post: #40

Liberal whites don't really like blacks, probably even less so than most conservatives. As evidence, look at the places they tend to live (swpl gentrified city areas, gated communities, constantly expanding all-white suburbs). Liberals see blacks as pawns in their moral superiority self-narrative.

Post: #41

(03-07-2014 01:42 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  The reason we had welfare in the first place was to fight widespread poverty. Eliminating it would cause poverty rates to rise. So it's a tradeoff between the lessor of two evils. Plus studies have shown that most people on welfare are not actually abusing it. They are using it as intended, namely as temporary assistance until they can get back on their feet. The whole "welfare queen" thing is a bit of a myth...

http://aattp.org/debunking-reagans-bulls...d-for-all/

Now that we have a multi-generational culture in the U.S. based around and dependent on welfare, yeah, removing it would result in massive short-term chaos.

Incentivizing something creates more of it. Taxing something reduces it. The U.S. has incentivized poverty (and all the bad choices surrounding and contributing to it) via welfare. Pay people to fail, to not plan ahead, to not be able to take care of themselves and they'll keep doing it.

Also, let's be real here, most blacks will always support libs, no matter what, for the following simple reason : leftists are for taking money from whitey and giving it to blacks by force. No matter what the downsides, very few blacks are ever going to be out-and-out against that.

Post: #42

Deuce and a half obviously didn't read the article and doesn't know what he's talking about. Juan Williams is a huge liberal and has called out conservatives for being racist before.

Post: #43

(03-07-2014 06:39 PM)darklightdispatch Wrote:  Also, let's be real here, most blacks will always support libs, no matter what, for the following simple reason : leftists are for taking money from whitey and giving it to blacks by force. No matter what the downsides, very few blacks are ever going to be out-and-out against that.

Well, that's an interesting way of framing things. More accurately leftists believe in higher taxes on the wealthy to fund a social safety net. Blacks pay taxes too. And well to do blacks pay a lot in tax. At least half or more of the welfare cases are poor whites. It's not so black & white, pun intended.

Post: #44

(03-07-2014 06:32 PM)darklightdispatch Wrote:  Liberal whites don't really like blacks, probably even less so than most conservatives. As evidence, look at the places they tend to live (swpl gentrified city areas, gated communities, constantly expanding all-white suburbs). Liberals see blacks as pawns in their moral superiority self-narrative.

Any inner city is a clear example of this, they preach multiculturalism but they try to live as far as they can from the ghetto, is more easy to see black and white in the south living together than in a liberal city.

Post: #45

(03-07-2014 08:40 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Well, that's an interesting way of framing things. More accurately leftists believe in higher taxes on the wealthy to fund a social safety net. Blacks pay taxes too. And well to do blacks pay a lot in tax. At least half or more of the welfare cases are poor whites. It's not so black & white, pun intended.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the majority of welfare recipients are white. You have to keep in mind, though, that something like 70% of the population is white and only 12-13% is black. If whites and blacks were on welfare equally, only a little more than 10% of all welfare recipients would be black.

Welfare in the U.S., in all of its many forms, is a net transfer from whites to blacks. Just like it is also a net transfer from men to women. Both of those groups get dramatically more than they put in, percentage wise. For this reason, it would be ridiculous to expect women or blacks to EVER not support leftists. Dems/leftists could do almost anything, no matter how outrageous, and these demos would always support them because of this.

Whites and men, of course, are huge net losers in the system. This is one reason why promoting white guilt (and "male guilt") is so fundamentally important to leftists. Without it, what halfway sane white person would support or even put up with a system that fucks them over in favor of other, often adversarial demographics? Constant social shaming about racism is absolutely necessary to sustaining socialist policies in the U.S.

Post: #46

(03-08-2014 02:04 AM)darklightdispatch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 08:40 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Well, that's an interesting way of framing things. More accurately leftists believe in higher taxes on the wealthy to fund a social safety net. Blacks pay taxes too. And well to do blacks pay a lot in tax. At least half or more of the welfare cases are poor whites. It's not so black & white, pun intended.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the majority of welfare recipients are white. You have to keep in mind, though, that something like 70% of the population is white and only 12-13% is black. If whites and blacks were on welfare equally, only a little more than 10% of all welfare recipients would be black.

Welfare in the U.S., in all of its many forms, is a net transfer from whites to blacks. Just like it is also a net transfer from men to women. Both of those groups get dramatically more than they put in, percentage wise. For this reason, it would be ridiculous to expect women or blacks to EVER not support leftists. Dems/leftists could do almost anything, no matter how outrageous, and these demos would always support them because of this.

Whites and men, of course, are huge net losers in the system. This is one reason why promoting white guilt (and "male guilt") is so fundamentally important to leftists. Without it, what halfway sane white person would support or even put up with a system that fucks them over in favor of other, often adversarial demographics? Constant social shaming about racism is absolutely necessary to sustaining socialist policies in the U.S.

You see it as a transfer of wealth from whites to blacks. I see it as transfer of wealth from haves to have-nots. Both are true depending what light you see it in. It's important to remember a few things:

1) Most blacks are not on public assistance. Most work for their money.

2) It's a minority of taxpayers that carry the burden of the welfare state. Since we have a progressive taxation system, 70% of the taxes may come from the top 20%. That may not be the precise number but it's something to that effect. It's late, I don't feel like looking up the exact figures right now. So while most money is being paid by whites, that does not mean all whites are paying over their share. Given how much will go to middle class boomers who retire and go on Medicare and SS, it may be that below average and average middle-income whites will take more from the system than they ever put in.

It's funny when I see a white person who makes 40k a year complaining about how much his money is going to welfare. Most of the tax money is coming from people making 250k a year.

But you're only talking about social welfare. Not the corporate welfare in the form of no-bid contracts and bailouts to banks that give failed CEOs $40 million golden parachutes. I think it's all so much bigger than race. But we're probably just going to have to agree to disagree.

Post: #47

(03-07-2014 12:21 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  It's not that liberals have blacks on a leash, it's that conservatives have nothing to offer that's appealing to blacks on the whole. Add in an instance of the Southern Strategy every 4 years and it's no big surprise.

Even if you think these are good things why would these Republican ideas be popular with any black person that's looking at things from a perspective of rational self-interest?

1) Ending affirmative action. Even if you think it's fair, that's obviously not in the self-interest of a black person and it's certainly not going to be a draw for black voters.

2) Ending Affordable Care Act. Blacks have the worst life-expectancy and are least likely to be insured and have affordable options to health care. Why would voting for the party that wants to take away ACA be attractive?

3) Lowering taxes on the rich. Since blacks are more likely to be poor, why the fuck do they care about lowering taxes on millionaires?

4) De-funding public education. Black kids are more likely to go to fucked up schools, why would they want to vote for the party that hates the NEA?

5) On guns. We all know how many black men die from gunfire in the inner-city. Why are blacks going to vote for the pro-NRA crowd that thinks we need MORE guns.

6) Unemployment insurance. Black unemployment rates are double the white rate. Why vote for the party fights the extension of unemployment benefits?

I'm not making a personal pro/con argument about any of the above. I'm just saying that for an average black American voting from the perspective of rational self-interest, there's just not much to like about Republicans/fiscal Libertarians and conservatives. Gay marriage is about the only area blacks intersect with conservatives.

I saw this and had to reply. It is possible many African Americans vote Democrat for these reasons. I do not know...

#1) Affirmative Action was great at one time. That time was 30+ years ago. Today it just helps create a wedge and helps diminish accomplishments by anyone who maybe suspected of benefiting and making it only due to AA. It is time for it to go. If anything, if it must stay, it should only be based on your parents income in relation to what scholarships are available. Basing this on race and/or gender is nonsense.

#2) "Why would voting for the party that wants to take away ACA be attractive?" Because the ACA is a nightmare. It will chase away more doctors while adding in more govt. bureaucracy (aka waste). In the end at best the ACA will be a tax on men to give to single mothers and ration healthcare for the old people who spent their lives paying into the system. At worse it was designed to fail so we could have a socialist healthcare system, and if that happens, then we all lose. And not just Americans, EVERYONE in the world will loose as drug advances will greatly slow down in the USA, the country that makes most drug/medical advances due to our current system of rewards.

#3) That money will exist regardless. Either the rich will have it (as they earned it) or it will be taxed and give to the govt. One of these two entities has to compete on an open market and be efficient. The other doesn't. The more the govt. takes, the more we all lose in the long run. Especially the poor. The govt. takes this money, gives away crap junk food and violent neighborhoods to the poor, and then with the left over they live like kings and throw it away on pet projects, such as a road to no where in WV or studying pig farts in Iowa or field mice in California.

#4) Was already addressed correctly in this thread previously. We have the NYC mayor trying to take down charter schools so the poor get an even worse education to protect the union voters.

#5) The problem with this mindset is it is like all the people doing illegal drugs thinking if we make guns illegal they will disappear. Guns will be out there, regardless of an NRA. And if not, the thugs will find another way to kill innocent people. Whether bats, or chains, or bombs. What the ghettos need is MEN who are armed to protect their own houses and their own streets. The average response time in the bad parts of Detroit is over 45 minutes. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens only adds more violence.

#6) Unemployment insurance is very nice. But we can't keep spending money at these rates forever. And we wouldn't need so much unemployment insurance if we had a president who understand even the least bit of basic economics and stopped trying to do things that everyone in their right mind could never work. Hey, the CBO says we will lose up to 1,000,000 jobs if we raise minimum wage. Every time we raised minimum wage in the history of the country, prices raised within 3 years to mean that those making min. wage were in the very same economic spot. And every time it was raised jobs were cut in favor of technology. Thus only hurting the poor and middle class. So the President says "to hell with those facts, I want to do it anyway because it sounds good".

Post: #48

(03-08-2014 03:35 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(03-08-2014 02:04 AM)darklightdispatch Wrote:  

(03-07-2014 08:40 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  Well, that's an interesting way of framing things. More accurately leftists believe in higher taxes on the wealthy to fund a social safety net. Blacks pay taxes too. And well to do blacks pay a lot in tax. At least half or more of the welfare cases are poor whites. It's not so black & white, pun intended.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the majority of welfare recipients are white. You have to keep in mind, though, that something like 70% of the population is white and only 12-13% is black. If whites and blacks were on welfare equally, only a little more than 10% of all welfare recipients would be black.

Welfare in the U.S., in all of its many forms, is a net transfer from whites to blacks. Just like it is also a net transfer from men to women. Both of those groups get dramatically more than they put in, percentage wise. For this reason, it would be ridiculous to expect women or blacks to EVER not support leftists. Dems/leftists could do almost anything, no matter how outrageous, and these demos would always support them because of this.

Whites and men, of course, are huge net losers in the system. This is one reason why promoting white guilt (and "male guilt") is so fundamentally important to leftists. Without it, what halfway sane white person would support or even put up with a system that fucks them over in favor of other, often adversarial demographics? Constant social shaming about racism is absolutely necessary to sustaining socialist policies in the U.S.

You see it as a transfer of wealth from whites to blacks. I see it as transfer of wealth from haves to have-nots. Both are true depending what light you see it in. It's important to remember a few things:

1) Most blacks are not on public assistance. Most work for their money.

Sources are from here, if they are unreliable, whatever I don't have the time to turn this into a scholarly article.

Its says that 46.3% of black families are single female led households making an average of $25000/year. That is THE sweet spot number for public assistance. Food stamps of $3600/year, Earned income Tax credit of another $3000, subsidized daycare of $2500/year per kid, medicaid based medical care worth an easy $7200/year. Also being single females with low income, with access to benefits the state hunts down fathers for child support, giving them publicly assisted debt collectors. That is 40% of their income coming from public assistance. That is not 'working for their money'

I don't know what proportion of families makes up the income demographic but the same site has over 50% of blacks making less than $35k/year, you can still get earned income tax credit of $1000 at that amount on top of a standard deduction and exemption for a single person of about $15000 so you're really only paying %10 tax on 20,000 plust the EITC is an effective tax rate of 2.8%...again not what I call 'working for the money' tax and social policy are helping the majority of black income earners.

I want to circle back again though and remove the color from the equation, this problem exists with the poor in america period. Tax and public assistance polices don't help 'the working poor' they help the employers. If someone earns %40 of their income from government incentives the employer theoretically has to pay the other %60 to support a full time employee. Thats what I don't like and think is broken, go ahead and jack the minimum wage up to $12 but also drop earned income tax credit, medicaid assistance, obamacare tax credits, subsidized daycare and pass those saving back to employers so they can then afford the minimum wage. Middle man eliminated and now individuals and families have the free choice of use for their paycheck. clothes, big screen TV's or savings, education and diapers.

Post: #49

From an outsider perspective, blacks in the US vote Democrat due to the nature of the country's nativist politics.

Elections are not a game of addition, but substitution.

Take France for example, a country with a similar demographic makeup in percentages between black-white-arab (replace arab with mexican in the US).

The centre-right party of Nikolas Sarkozy finally got the black/arab vote by promises of industry deregulation, in the subsequent election he began losing his more hardcore nativist supporters. Notice I'm not saying rightwingers, but nativist, as nativists put race, culture, and ethnocentrism above economics and social policy. They went to vote for Marie LePen's National Front. The NF is essentially a quasy communist/socialist party, why would right wingers jump there? Simple, nativism.

It's similar in the US. The Republican party mopped up the disgruntled southern white vote after the civil rights push of the 60s.

The Democrats didn't overnight become to party of social welfare in 1960, they were the party of social welfare and feminism for the past century.

The Democratic party platform in 1920:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29592

It sounds very similar to the Democratic platform of today. Higher taxes, push for women's suffrage, battling the high cost of living, investment in infrastructure etc. More or less the same platform as today.

And that was the party that southern white voters happily voted for since the 1890s.

If it was a Republican president that signed the civil rights bill (it was after all a completely bi-partisan bill), and had the southern strategy never materialised, today on this forum blacks would be getting banned over being hard-headed supporters of their Republican party agenda, and many white dudes would be pushing the democratic leftist agenda. Listening to some of my European compatriots talk the good talk in respect to having higher taxes, more social equality, and even better women's rights, then turn around and spew some of the most hardcore nativist/racist shit will make you realize that economics do not dictate political affiliation for many multi-racial countries, nativist affiliation and emotion do. A bad combination.

Look at a country that doesn't racially troll its electorate and play nativist politics: Canada. The conservative party happily has 10% lead over the liberals from "visible minorities". The term assigned to non white, non aboriginal people in Canada, which make up roughly about 20% of the Canadian population, Chinese, South Asian, Black, and the others, in that order.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9310918c-...z2vO0JT2Yc

The retrospect, the reason why blacks (and most minorities really) in America vote Democrat is just circumstantial. If they switched over slowly to the Republican party, which in my opinion will happen within the next few decades, there will be whole-sale transformation of the electorate landscape. Hopefully by then Americans can get over their nativist politics so that we don't get racial parties springing up by malcontent voters who'd rather not be voting by association to a party supported by people who don't look like them.

Here's hoping.

Post: #50

(03-08-2014 03:35 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  You see it as a transfer of wealth from whites to blacks. I see it as transfer of wealth from haves to have-nots. Both are true depending what light you see it in.

While we can debate whether people with wealth earned what they have in a "fair" or ethical way, it's certain that that recipients of government programs didn't earn it. This view that you deserve other people's resources just for existing is destructive to the human spirit. If you think you're entitled to things just for having a pulse, you're going to be envious of anyone who seems to have more than you and feel justified in taking it away.

The system of "forced charity" via government that is central to contemporary leftism is, of course, really no charity at all. It radically alienates rich people from poor people. It destroys the idea of noblesse oblige and encourages resentment in the wealthy and a feeling of entitlement in the poor. It makes the productive bitter, unhappy parents and the unproductive angry, ill-behaved children.

(03-08-2014 03:35 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  1) Most blacks are not on public assistance. Most work for their money.

But nearly all, at least publicly, support as radical a system of socialist redistribution as is on the table.

(03-08-2014 03:35 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  2) It's a minority of taxpayers that carry the burden of the welfare state. Since we have a progressive taxation system, 70% of the taxes may come from the top 20%. That may not be the precise number but it's something to that effect. It's late, I don't feel like looking up the exact figures right now. So while most money is being paid by whites, that does not mean all whites are paying over their share. Given how much will go to middle class boomers who retire and go on Medicare and SS, it may be that below average and average middle-income whites will take more from the system than they ever put in.

It's funny when I see a white person who makes 40k a year complaining about how much his money is going to welfare. Most of the tax money is coming from people making 250k a year.

But you're only talking about social welfare. Not the corporate welfare in the form of no-bid contracts and bailouts to banks that give failed CEOs $40 million golden parachutes. I think it's all so much bigger than race. But we're probably just going to have to agree to disagree.

I wasn't suggesting that race is the only factor at all, but the topic of the thread is ""Why Do Liberals Have so Much Hate for Black Conservatives?" So race is the issue at hand here.

Your two arguments above are sort of conflicting. First, you state that rich people pay the vast majority of taxes so middle class people shouldn't worry about it. Then you imply that corporations (which are entirely composed of said rich people) still aren't paying enough. The rich are paying at least 70%, though. How much would be fair? 80%? 90%? Should they just give all their money to the government?

There really are no poor people in the U.S. today. Being overfed is more of a problem than being underfed, even at the lowest rungs of society. Walk through even the worst neighborhoods and everyone will have a new smart phone and there are late-model cars everywhere. In any other time or place, this wouldn't be close to "poor." My own family was officially below the poverty line most of the time I was growing up and we were nowhere near "impoverished" by any half-way reasonable standard.

Give a chunk of money to most poor people (of any race) and they'll having nothing to show for it and be back in the same financial situation in a very short amount of time. The problem isn't that there's not enough wealth, but what people do with. Things like a welfare state, which promote the idea that a person's, well, welfare is someone else's responsibility, only exacerbate this.