Log In | Register
The irony couldn't have been more profound: last night's GOP presidential debate was held on Martin Luther King Jr., Day, in South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies at the Statehouse.
Furthermore, it featured some of the most loaded and offensive racially-charged moments in a campaign season that was, dodgy to say the least, in that respect.
The Four Most Racist, Fearmongering and Absurd Moments from Last Night's Debate |
Seeded on Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:21 PM EST
Article Source: AlterNet.org- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (358)
Just for one example, I'm so glad that Gingrich's 13 year old loved doing janitorial work for their local church....which we really don't know what that involved (could have been collecting and redistributing hymnals) but to compare it to kids working as janitors at their own school considering the stigma and harassment directed toward kids who can't afford to wear the "right clothes", or seem in anyway different in reality, I don't see this as creating a good work ethic, but the absolute opposite, and most probably will result in the young person dropping out of school.
CoH please...especially if you see it in a totally different light.
- 46 votes
Cleaning a church is volunteer work that many children do, often helping their volunteering parents who are members of the church. I should not be permanent employment. I have not watched these debates, do not want the intellectual head ache. I am glad someone is reporting on these debates. When Newt was Speaker of the House, he wanted to bring back orphanages. Sounds like someone does not like children to well.
- 35 votes
Call me biased...but every time the crowd booed at the name Obama should have made the top ten.
- 28 votes
I was only 12 when I started doing clean up at a local autobody shop. I liked having some extra money and eventually learned to paint and do body repair. While I didn't move forward in that field it did teach me work ethic and showing up on time all the time. There is nothing wrong with teaching someone how to work.
- 11 votes
I saw two problems with the video. First, the crowd cheered for Gingrich's obvious racism and condescending behavior (I note the way he emphasized Juan). The crowds rudeness and catcalls of the moderator's questions was boorish behavior.
The second problem is the way that Gingrich can phrase his words to sound reasonable, camouflaging his racist meaning. Most on the right will never admit Gingrich's intent, many in the middle will be fooled.
- 31 votes
putman
If you want to find racism, you will find it on even the most flimsy of excuses. Newt has know Juan Williams for a long time. Implying racisim the way he pronounced the man's name is pretty flimsy.
Your second paragraph takes the prize, however. "...can phrase his words so they sound reasonable..."
What are we to make of that? He didn't use the N-word, so that proves he's a racist?
Some of you are still living in 1850.
- 11 votes
If there are more people on food stamps during Obama's tenure in the the WH thus far, it is due totally to the mess that Bush left him to deal with, an economy that the GOPTeaBags have done all they can to make even worse, and they have made no effort to help to create jobs for the people, just the opposite, while they sit and eat steak at some fancy restaurant, play golf at an expensive country club, and thumb their nose at the working people begging for help.
THAT is why there are so many more people on food stamps at this time, and they have the guts to look people in the eye and blame it on Obama! The people in that audience are the reason the GOPTeaBags are what they are. It is the supporters who make the candidates the slime bags they are, as that is what they are, and all under the overly touted piety of being a 'true Christian'. But, in truth, their idea of loving thy neighbor as thyself, is to let the 'little people' eat their crumbs, as that is all they are worth.
They make me sick every time I watch one of the debates. The supporters are worse than the candidates, as they are not held to any rules or ethics as are the candidates. And Gingrich knows just how to play that crowd, he made it.
They truly know just how bigoted they are, and they think that is the way it should be. They are no one bit ashamed of the fact that they racist and anything but Christians, and I hope that one day they will find out just how it feels to be thus treated by a 'Christian' like themselves.
- 28 votes
All four examples are deplorable, but Newt takes the cake in my book (no pun intended).
Newt has singled out black people, and yet doesn't seem to have any clue that the majority of food stamp recipients in America are white link Translation: Newt = Dumb$ss.
Instead of the NAACP, perhaps Newt should go speak to the NRA about "paychecks instead of food stamps"? Or the RNC maybe?
- 26 votes
You need less food stamps if you know how to shoot your own meat.
- 5 votes
You need less food stamps if you know how to shoot your own meat.
Casey's General Store closes at 11:00PM.
- 6 votes
"You need less food stamps if you know how to shoot your own meat."
That could be true if you lived on many acres of your own land and have the ability to hunt at will. But, for average Americans, hunting for meat is only allowed in 'seasons' for animals such deer, duck, rabbits, squirrel and other animals that provide meat due to worms or other reason that make their meat inedible. Plus, hunting is only allowed in specific places, unless you own your own land.
And, of course you need to have a gun or other means to shoot the game, and a means to field dress and haul the meat home before it taints. So, saying "if you know how to shoot your own meat" is not entirely a simple or reasonable idea, and can have drawbacks.
- 22 votes
You need less food stamps if you swear to not live from the alms of another.
We live in a country where work, food, and resources are abundant. There is NO good reason to apply for food stamps.
- 4 votes
I do see some young people living off the excesses of others. One man's waste is another's man's food (freeganism).
- 2 votes
Newt did great in the debate, and hopefully will come out swinging in the future debates. He has 7 months until the convention... Of course, he is really in a David vs Goliath situation, taking on not only Romnny, but the entire political establishment, Dem & GOP, who all have a vested interest in the perpetuation of the status quo.
- 3 votes
buckeyenut-2225921,
In regards to this job you had at an auto body shop;
Did you fill out all the required paperwork such as a W-2 form or were you, like most kids at 12, paid cash on the side?
I ask becuase Gingrich is pushing straight-up. bona fide employment for kids...like punching a clock, paycheck, federal withholding's kind of employment. I worked at 12 too, mowing lawns, helping to clean a garage, running errands but nothing close to working in an environment, like a body shop, where there is a high possibility of getting physically harmed.
- 14 votes
Hungers a great reason to apply for Food Stamps. If they are so bad why did 16 million start receiving food stamps under Bush?
- 19 votes
GAWD! Can someone help these White people gain some ego strength for Pete's sake! Try looking deeper into who and what you can become once to eliminate your false sense of superiority and ill informed stereotyping of others different form you. We cannot help that President Obama has shattered your false stereotypes and caused you to question your own identity and place in the world. Perhaps anchoring or self worth to more worthy character traits other then your whiteness would be a good start.
- 27 votes
We live in a country where work, food, and resources are abundant.
Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Or, are you writing from The Glorious Republic Of North Korea, Where Nothing Can Ever Be Wrong?
- 19 votes
You need less food stamps if you swear to not live from the alms of another.
But if you're white, it's not because you're shiftless and have no work ethic, right?
- 22 votes
if you swear to not live from the alms of another.
It's been my experience that no matter HOW educated, financially secure, etc. one is, there is tNO ONE who is protected from losing everything. In fact I've seen it seems to happen more often to those who take the attitude that they are invincible, and will never need to rely on the assistance of others. Physicians are swindled. Highly successful business multi millionaire lost eveything including several large corporations, marinas, etc after the Gulf spill...did he see it coming? Has any reimbursement been made, despite what BP claims? No, to both
People loss retirement they had worked and saved for their entire lives when the market crashed, or when Enron crumbled. People who are "invincible" are suddenly struck with a catastrophic illness that not only precludes ever being able to work again, but leads to the loss of all finances and their homes, investments and savings. Burglars can steal, internet hackers can create devastation, earthquakes can take everything....I think of the hiker who had to BURN money to stay warm. There but by the grace of God goes all of us, and don't be so sure that at some time you might need to rely on the "alms" of others.
The use of the word alms, creates such an ugly picture. The rich businessman tossing a few gold coins in the dirt so the poor can grovel for it. "Alms" an apt choice of words.
- 15 votes
Perhaps anchoring or self worth to more worthy character traits other then your whiteness would be a good start.
Well, by the standards of this article, you are guilty of racism as well.
Can someone help these White people gain some ego strength for Pete's sake!
I forgot this one as well.
Try looking deeper into who and what you can become once to eliminate your false sense of superiority and ill informed stereotyping of others different form you.
I'm not sure where you are getting that the candidates used stereotyping?
- 1 vote
You sir wouldn't get it but be assured that the Average American whose self worth isn't rooted in the color of their skin does. We talk about how slavery and institutionalized racism has harmed African Americans and their descendants but something similar can be said for Whites who have been allowed to hang their whole identity on an idea of superiority and miss informed stereotyping of other races. The elevation of an African American to the highest office in the land has essentially turn their whole self worth and identity on it's head. The pillars of their self esteem have been shaken to it's core and we see an attempt to recapture their ego strength through a defeat of President Obama. What concerns me is what will they do if they loose this effort, how will they cope? How and when will they begin to look at themselves realistically and begin to require more of themselves then just their race. Surely white people have more to contribute to this society then how they false process themselves in relation to others different from themselves. Surely the content of ones character is a much stronger foundation to build ones self worth then the lack of melanin and the perceived societal advantages that it might bring.
- 8 votes
South Carolina is essentially a tale of two cities one being very wealthy and the other being extremely poor (white and others) Well of course the wealthy have consistently maintained control over the others but one wonders how can poor whites be convinced to co-sign on an agenda which essentially leaves them less educated and essentially permanently relegated to the ranks of the poor. The answer is simple and can be found in my above post.
- 7 votes
Well of course the wealthy have consistently maintained control over the others but one wonders how can poor whites be convinced to co-sign on an agenda which essentially leaves them less educated and essentially permanently relegated to the ranks of the poor
The same way poor blacks voted for Pres. Obama at or above 95%.
Whites who have been allowed to hang their whole identity on an idea of superiority and miss informed stereotyping of other races.
Who are you talking about? The only superiority complex conservatives have is in their ideas. We think conservatism is superior to liberalism. You did notice that Pres. Obama was elected by white people. Without the majority of white voters in his corner, he would have lost. White voters with an imagined superiority complex as you describe.
Did you notice how many black conservatives ran for congress in 2010? 42of them ran, 14 won the primary and 2 of them are now in the US Congress. One of them ran in South Carolina against Strom Thurmonds son and won with 70% of the vote. He beat the son of Strom Thurmond, arguably the biggest racist in modern history in South Carolina. A black conservative did this.
If we lose this time around, we will do what we did for the last 3 years. We will work to elect somebody better. You are the one that sees everything through race, not me.
I would vote for a black conservative in a heart beat if such a person got our nomination. Not out of guilt, but because we would share a common view of the future of our country.
- 3 votes
When people like GA Girl view everything in life through the prism of racism, then everything will appear to be racist in one form or another. It is truly a shame that ideas cannot be debated on their merits because of people like her that dilute any meaningful discourse by assuming imagined positions rather than dealing with actual facts.
- 2 votes
Who disputes the number of whites who voted for Barack? I certainly do not since many will do so again given the alternative. Look I get that people like yourself don't like really to acknowledge that race has and will likely continue to be part of our countries lexicon and truthful I personally could care less who you vote for if my comments do not directly apply to you then why would you feel the need to disavow them? Most people can acknowledge the reality of race and racism without attempting to say "Some of by best friends are Black or in your case I'd vote for Herman Cain." Methinks the gentleman doth protest a bit too much. LOL!
- 10 votes
Just for one example, I'm so glad that Gingrich's 13 year old loved doing janitorial work for their local church....which we really don't know what that involved (could have been collecting and redistributing hymnals) but to compare it to kids working as janitors at their own school considering the stigma and harassment directed toward kids who can't afford to wear the "right clothes", or seem in anyway different in reality, I don't see this as creating a good work ethic, but the absolute opposite, and most probably will result in the young person dropping out of school.
I did the same thing. Did janitor work at my church with parents when I was a kid for some money. I also worked in a raspberry field(s) for a couple seasons as well for extra money. Then I got a better job, etc, etc. I didn't go to college either but now I'm 28 and have a 23 dollar an hour job with benefits which is same pay as my last job as well. I agree with Gingrich on his idea and thoughts. To think its racist is dumb.
- 2 votes
Here is why it is racist. Gingrich did not indicate his janitorial work education program was for the low income or poor in general but he specifically selected Black children as opposed to poor children of ALL races and creeds. So the implication or code if you will is that Black children alone are in need of work and a work ethic and I submit to you that this premise is not only incorrect but also rooted in racism.
- 9 votes
It's been my experience that no matter HOW educated, financially secure, etc. one is, there is tNO ONE who is protected from losing everything.
Well said rd!
Perfect example, a friend of mine from Illinois moved to Tennessee last month (she white btw...really doesnt matter)
She moved to escape her ex-boyfriend who was seriously messing with her and she had to move quickly and discreetly. Anyways the job she was promised in Tennessee didn't work out, she did manage to get another, less paying job to work full time at while she waits for her original job to open up. In the mean time she is on public assistance for her two kids (one is special needs).
She is working, she is in a bad situation, she has never been on public assistance before, she can't wait for the day when she is no longer on it.
5 years ago she was living in a huge house in lake county with a job and with out a care in the world. Now she is living in a rental in Tennessee with hardly a dime to her name, none of this was through any fault of her own.
nobody is immune to poverty.
- 8 votes
If we lose this time around, we will do what we did for the last 3 years. We will work to elect somebody better.
In other words you will continue to take a "dig in your heels," obstinate, obstructionist position, that is harmful to our country and the middle class just to see this administration fail. I find that pathetic, and disgusting. It has already disgusted the majority of Americans, so it's fine because it will just guarantee that more moderate liberals will stay in leadership.
- 6 votes
Look I get that people like yourself don't like really to acknowledge that race has and will likely continue to be part of our countries lexicon
Absolutely not true. I know there are still racist people in this country that are white, black, Asian, etc. I know it still exists and it isn't going away any time soon.
However, I don't see racism in everything. Gingrich isn't belittling the poor, or black people, he is telling them that he would like to see them all with a job and not dependent on the government. You see that as racism, or condescending, but it is neither.
Look at the statistics. Black Americans have the highest unemployment rate in the country. Newt and the other conservatives want to see that percentage come down to the national average at least. What is the harm in that?
if my comments do not directly apply to you then why would you feel the need to disavow them?
Because I happen to support their message and I don't see it as racist. I think the term racism is being used entirely too much in today's dialogue. Anytime a conservative speaks about the black community it is viewed as racist even if the message is about picking people up and taking pride in a honest days work. Instead of acknowledging the message, many on the left automatically look for racism and twist words.
"Some of by best friends are Black or in your case I'd vote for Herman Cain."
None of my best friends are black. That is not by choice, but rather geography. I have no problem supporting a black conservative at all. If I agree with them, I will fight with them.
So the implication or code if you will is that Black children alone are in need of work and a work ethic and I submit to you that this premise is not only incorrect but also rooted in racism.
I have to disagree. Would you rather he just ignore the subject all together? As much as I don't like Eric Holder, he was correct when he said that Americans are scared to talk about race. I wonder why? Anytime a conservative, white or black, bring it up they are racist or an uncle Tom.
it's fine because it will just guarantee that more moderate liberals will stay in leadership.
We shall see, we shall see.
rescue dog,
How in the world does "work to elect somebody better" translate to "a "dig in your heels", obstinate, obstructionist position"?
- 1 vote
@ iceman
Look at the statistics. Black Americans have the highest unemployment rate in the country. Newt and the other conservatives want to see that percentage come down to the national average at least. What is the harm in that?
There is no harm in that notion...... until he blames high unemployment in the black community on "laziness" and "a lack of work ethic".
We are less than one generation removed from a time when racism was literally institutional, legal, and celebrated. Perhaps Newt may want to consider that the high unemployment rate in the black community isn't because black people don't work hard, but because our nation is still struggling to undo centuries of culture which embraced overt racism and discrimination.
How realistic is to think that after centuries of blatant discrimination, our nation can say "alright, you're equal now" and suddenly everything would be fair and just? That notion is - for lack of a better phrase - f*ckin absurd. And Newt's blaming poor economic conditions for black people on "laziness" and a "lack of work ethic" is deplorable, disgusting, and indicative of a man whom is so thoroughly out of touch with our nation's history that he has no business being anywhere near legislative authority.
- 12 votes
"work to elect somebody better" translate to "a "dig in your heels", obstinate, obstructionist position"?
JC,
The GOP and Tea Party ran on JOBS, JOBS, JOBS, their number 1 priority....remember. The first week of President Obama's administration Mitchell Mc Connell said that their #1 priority was to make President Obama a one term president, and of course, Rush, said that that they must make this administration fail. Clearly a message that they would block anything he tried to do. I could start listing all the ways they took an unyielding obstructionist approach, or addressed tangential, unimportant issues, without ever addressing jobs. but it just makes my blood pressure go up.
Because of all the pledges they chose to make to Norquist rather than the U.S. States of America, they brought us to the brink of default, which resulted in a drop in our credit rating, and thus increasing our interest costs. Of course the people didn't know that Erik Cantor, directly profited financially for the drop in credit rating, and I wonder how many others did....Norquist?
Senate Republicans promised Wednesday to block legislative action on every issue being considered by the lame-duck Congress until the dispute over extending the Bush-era tax cuts is resolved and an extension of current government funding is approved.
- 7 votes
@jumpshotjarrod
You are going to have to help me here. I can't find a quote where Newt called the black community lazy. Can you post one? I did find this quote that seems to garner a lot of attention but I don't see where he is wrong.
“Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday,” he insisted. “They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash, unless it is illegal.”
He went on to say...
“It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child laws, which are truly stupid,”
I'm sorry, but I don't think there is anything wrong with these statements.
I can't find a quote where Newt called the black community lazy.
Maybe you could explain another reason why Newt thinks blacks are "satisfied" with food stamps instead of paychecks. Of course, Newt forgets that most people collecting food stamps work.
- 9 votes
trm - can you post the reference where Newt said he thinks blacks are satisfied with food stamps instead of paychecks?
- 1 vote
Where have you been??
Newt Gingrich: 'African-American Community Should Demand Paychecks And Not Be Satisfied With Food Stamps'
- 6 votes
Thanks Alex. You'd think people would be more informed about the subject before commenting.
- 9 votes
Rescue Dogs,
From what I saw of the jobs numbers this morning, apparently the GOP has been successful. They have only been there for 1 year and the numbers have come down during that time. It seems that stopping the Democrats from continuing with what they were doing has had a positive effect.
Are you honestly going to try to tell us that it is not the #1 goal of the other party to take back the White House? The only difference is that McConnell actually said it. Big whoop.
You really need to get better sources for your information. Rush said that he wanted President Obama to fail to turn America into a socialist country. He said he wanted him to fail to push through his socialist agenda.
Surely you are not suggesting that Democrats would not try to block Republicans from implementing their agenda, are you?
Politicians make pledges all the time (i.e., I will close Guantanamo Bay in my first year, I will end the wars, etc.). The pledge that the Republicans made was not to Norquist, it was to not raise taxes. And, of course, it is not binding in any way - other than in the minds of the voters. The Republican base expects its candidates to keep taxes low and reduce the spending. If candidates fail to do so, they will lose the support of their consituents.
What you fail to acknowledge is that the downgrade would have occurred regardless of the actions of the Republicans. They offered the only solution that would have actually prevented the downgrade, but it was rejected.
- 1 vote
Alex/trm,
As I said, can you show where he said that he thinks blacks are satisfied with food stamps?
What he said is that the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps. It is meant to point out that President Obama is the one that seems to think that blacks will be satisfied with food stamps - if he didn't, he would have taken steps to help make jobs available.
- 2 votes
The economy was growing faster in 2010 when the democrats were in charge. The repub way to cut the deficit is not the only possible solution. The repubs refused to go along with the democrat's solution to cut the deficit.
The deficit is not the main problem , the main problem is high unemployment. Cutting the deficit is the strategy that the repubs have to create a great depression to get rid of the black guy in the white house.
- 4 votes
What he said is that the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps. It is meant to point out that President Obama is the one that seems to think that blacks will be satisfied with food stamps - if he didn't, he would have taken steps to help make jobs available.
JC, you beat me to it. I was getting ready to ask the same question.
What Newt said was that African-Americans would rather get better jobs so they could come off food stamps than stay on food stamps. I for one agree with him.
- 1 vote
to get rid of the black guy in the white house.
You said it, not me. The left are the ones obsessed with his race. The right attacks his policies, just like they attacked Jimmy Carter's.
As I said, can you show where he said that he thinks blacks are satisfied with food stamps?
Hello! Gingrich said it. The actual words came out of his mouth. Turn yourself into a pretzel, it doesn't change what Newt said.
"I'm prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps," Gingrich said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57353438-503544/gingrich-singles-out-blacks-in-food-stamp-remark/
What Newt said was that blacks should want to work instead of being satisfied with food stamps. How does "demand jobs" morph into "demand better jobs" unless you're stretching to rationalize Gingrich's racist comments? Now, who's putting words in Newt's mouth?
- 6 votes
The repubs will continue antagonizing voters at their own political risk.
Americans Favor Jobs Plan Proposals, Including Taxing RichMajority say Obama's jobs plan will help economy at least "a little"...........http://www.gallup.com/poll/149567/americans-favor-jobs-plan-proposals-including-taxing-rich.aspx
The repubs are having a hard time getting people to oppose President Obama.....
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/19/us/politics/19poll-documents.htmlRead more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/12/20/bloomberg_articlesLWISQZ6S972A.DTL#ixzz1h7jGAN5yhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/151628/Congress-Ends-2011-Record-Low-Approval.aspx
- 2 votes
@ Iceman25
You are going to have to help me here. I can't find a quote where Newt called the black community lazy. Can you post one? I did find this quote that seems to garner a lot of attention but I don't see where he is wrong.
You stated directly that:
Look at the statistics. Black Americans have the highest unemployment rate in the country. Newt and the other conservatives want to see that percentage come down to the national average at least. What is the harm in that?
So it would appear that the breadth of Newt's comments on this issue have led you to believe that he was targeting black people too, otherwise why did you specifically mention Newt's intentions regarding black people?
And that's the thing with Gingrich: he scaffolds one insindiary comment on top of the other until it's blatantly apparent as to who and what he's referring to. He started out talking about how there's no work ethic amongst poor people (which is horsesh*t), then he branched into how he would teach the "inner city" kids to work, and then he began talking about black people specifically regarding "paychecks versus food stamps". He basically stair stepped his way up to overt racism..... all of which is based on a mountain of false assumption and hyperbole.
- 8 votes
You stated directly that:
Did I? I asked you where Newt called black Americans lazy. My comment was stating the fact that black Americans do indeed suffer from the highest unemployment rate and that Newt would like to see those numbers come down closer to the national average or below.
Where did I state that Newt called them lazy?
He started out talking about how there's no work ethic amongst poor people (which is horsesh*t),
No he didn't. He said in really poor neighborhoods, really poor children have no habits of working because many of the people around them are in fact unemployed. Where did he say there is no work ethic?
then he branched into how he would teach the "inner city" kids to work,
Wrong again. He said he would like to give these kids the opportunity to work within the community to earn money, which is a good thing. How you spin that into a negative, racist charge is amazing.
and then he began talking about black people specifically regarding "paychecks versus food stamps".
Yeah, how he thinks they would rather have a job that would allow them to pay for food versus accepting food stamps. I know, right. That is terrible. You are the one connecting dots that aren't there.
all of which is based on a mountain of false assumption and hyperbole
So his assumptions that the poor would rather work, earn money and get off of food stamps is wrong? That giving poor kids in poor communities the opportunity to work, earn money and know what is like to have pride in something is wrong?
Who are the racists?
- 2 votes
So his assumptions that the poor would rather work, earn money and get off of food stamps is wrong?
Except that isn't what Newt said. He said they were "satisfied" with food stamps. Big difference. BTW, most people on food stamps are already working.
Newt Gingrich today told a crowd in Des Moines, Iowa, that children in poor neighborhoods have “no habits of working and nobody around them who works.”
“They have no habit of showing up on Monday and staying all day or the concept of ’I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal,” Gingrich said.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/gingrich-says-poor-children-have-no-work-ethic/
Gingrich is despicable.
- 9 votes
Except that isn't what Newt said. He said they were "satisfied" with food stamps. Big difference. BTW, most people on food stamps are already working.
Are you really going to claim that? Do you know how to ready and what words mean?
You are twisting his words so bad. He said they should demand paycheck and not, let me repeat that, NOT be satisfied with food stamps. That is way different that saying they are satisfied with food stamps. If you don't understand that, I would advise you to take a English 101 and a literature class so you can understand sentence structure.
Those were Gingrich's words. He is implying that people are satisfied with food stamps.
Newt Gingrich: 'African-American Community Should Demand Paychecks And Not Be Satisfied With Food Stamps'
"Not be satisfied" implies that they are satisfied now. I won't exchange personal insults with you. It doesn't help any argument. Most people resort to them when they haven't got anything better to counter with.
Go ahead and defend Newt. Personally, I find his brand of dog whistle politics offensive. Unfortunately, a lot of people like it.
- 9 votes
There are a lot of more people unemployed than there are jobs. It is very simple. People will remain unemployed until the jobs appear.
They should just concentrate in creating jobs. After those jobs appear, the unemployment rate will automatically go down.
After centuries of racism, abuse and oppression, the minorities are at the bottom, that is why their unemployment rate is high, but it is a waste of time to start talking about those other issues. The solution is to create more jobs.
The only reason to start talking about the poor or inner city or NAACP or work ethic or blacks or blaaahs or welfare or food stamps, is racism. They do it to get all the votes from the racist beasts in the repub party.
Again, the solution is to create more jobs or may be lower the minimum wage.
- 6 votes
Alex,
Again, the solution is to create more jobs or may be lower the minimum wage.
While I agree with most of your post I have to say that lowering the minimum wage is the last thing we want to do, in my state the minimum wage isn't even a living wage, people who are earning this wage now have to be on food stamps or they won't eat, and most of them have children to feed as well, the minimum wage should be raised not lowered. Also, if you want job creation get your congressman to pass the presidents Jobs Act, this will create jobs and get the ball rolling.
- 5 votes
gmgross,
So, if a company can afford to pay four workers $7.50/hr (minimum wage), what exactly do you think will happen on the unemployment front when you tell that company they must now pay workers $8.50/hr? Do you honestly see this somehow making it more likely that companies will hire or layoff?
- 1 vote
It doesn't help any argument. Most people resort to them when they haven't got anything better to counter with.
You're right. I apologize. I don't like personal insults either.
We are going to have to disagree on whether or not Newt's words were racist. I don't see it.
So, if a company can afford to pay four workers $7.50/hr (minimum wage), what exactly do you think will happen on the employment front when you tell that company they can now pay them $3.00 per hour?
I can answer that. Nothing, the company will just make more profit, and the employees will make less money.
You're right. I apologize. I don't like personal insults either.
Thank you for that. We just disagree.
- 6 votes
trm - I agree with you. If they lower the minimum wage, it will simply mean more money in the pockets of the company (in the long run). However, that does not change the fact that raising the rate also has negative effects when the economy is struggling. If companies cannot afford to increase payroll costs, they will be forced to reduce staff.
There is international trade. If companies that are competing with exporters from other countries or US companies that export to other countries are able to lower their labor costs, they will be able to hire a lot of new employees and gain market share the world export markets. They would be able to give the US a huge trade surplus.
A huge trade surplus would stimulate the US economy and create more jobs in other sectors.
- 1 vote
It's a log-term strategic movement. Instead of other countries rising up to our standard of living, Corporate America wants to drop our standard of living (except for the rich) to meet the standard of living of those in the up and coming growth economies, on the way up. Our decline will act to hold down their rise. You can't stay the Masters of the Universe when you have so many people becoming wealthy. How can you have a global economy without global labor costs?
- 2 votes
@ Iceman25
My comment was stating the fact that black Americans do indeed suffer from the highest unemployment rate and that Newt would like to see those numbers come down closer to the national average or below.
First, what's Newt's explanation for WHY black Americans suffer the highest unemployment rates?? Given that the 'answers' he gives to fix this phenomenon are to develop "habits of work" and "not be satisfied with food stamps", what do YOU think Newt's explanation is as to why black Americans suffer higher unemployment rates.....??
No he didn't. He said in really poor neighborhoods, really poor children have no habits of working because many of the people around them are in fact unemployed. Where did he say there is no work ethic?
So you feel there's a distinguishable difference between work habits and work ethic?
Wrong again. He said he would like to give these kids the opportunity to work within the community to earn money, which is a good thing. How you spin that into a negative, racist charge is amazing.
Yeah, he'd give them the opportunity to work..... by laying off adults (and he sprinkles in a vague "union" reference for extra partisan zeal). Honestly, this 'plan' is utterly stupid, and doesn't have an ounce of functional practicality to it. He's talked about still having some 'adults around to supervise' (apparently these are going to be volunteers..... or is he going to pay these supervising adults those damned "union" janitor wages that he seems to hate?) and that the children wouldn't do the "dangerous" stuff...... is anybody who supports Gingrich actually listening to this nonsense?
But to the point, you don't feel that Newt has drawn a connection between his plan to put school kids to work as a solution for the 'problem' he's identified that poor kids have no habits of work??? you feel these are completely seperate, autonomous points??
Yeah, how he thinks they would rather have a job that would allow them to pay for food versus accepting food stamps. I know, right. That is terrible. You are the one connecting dots that aren't there.
First, many families on food stamps work. So, it's an ENORMOUS fallacy to act as if people on food stamps are "accepting them" as a substitute for working. Second, food stamp rolls spiked in late 2008 and the first quarter of 2009.... coinciding perfectly with the recession. This would very directly imply that tens of millions of Americans were WORKING for PAYCHECKS until they lost their jobs. So, for millions of unemployed Americans on food stamps, the stamps aren't "accepted" as a substitute for work..... because they were working until their job was taken.
And again, the only race Newt has mentioned specifically in regard to food stamps is BLACK people.... but you seem to see nothing wrong with that?
So his assumptions that the poor would rather work, earn money and get off of food stamps is wrong?
Where to start.... his assumption that poor people aren't working is wrong. His assumption that poor people are accepting food stamps as a substitute for paychecks is wrong. And his singling one specific ethnicity when discussing this issue is wrong.
Who are the racists?
Newt Gingrich.
You are twisting his words so bad. He said they should demand paycheck and not, let me repeat that, NOT be satisfied with food stamps. That is way different that saying they are satisfied with food stamps.
?? If someone said that you should not be satisfied with being stupid, what would you think they were saying?? Would you think they were saying that you were complicitly stupid, or would you think they were simply saying that *if* you happen to be stupid, you shouldn't be satisfied with being so?
- 5 votes
JC,
Do you honestly see this somehow making it more likely that companies will hire or layoff?
Maybe neither, the company might not be able to hire anyone at first, but, they wouldn't lay anyone off either, you seem to assume that a company will automatically lay everyone off if the wages go up by a dollar per worker earning minimum wage, this just isn't the case, I've worked for companies that have had the minimum go up on them and they haven't laid anyone off, in fact they hired more people within a month of the wage going up because they were able to expand. You see when wages go up people can buy more, when they can buy more, more things are made, when more things are made more people get hired, and you know what else happens when wages go up? People are able to get off of food stamps and other government programs. So, higher wages are kind of like a government program to cut government programs.
- 6 votes
it to kids working as janitors at their own school considering the stigma and harassment directed toward kids who can't afford to wear the "right clothes", or seem in anyway different in reality, I don't see this as creating a good work ethic
I think it would be just the opposite; kids would be jealous of the ones who had managed to get the jobs and there wold be fights over that. (I'm assuming these jobs paid more than minimum and you got school credit for doing them.) I live in a big city. My son attended a private high school on scholarship but most of the other kids were rich. The kids were still jealous of the ones who had decent part time jobs. If you managed to parlay your mandatory volunteer work into a paying job they were even more jealous. Why SHOULDN'T the kids in every high school sweep and mop the floor, wash the cafeteria trays, etc? It's good discipline, it will stop some of them from doing damage that they will just have to fix, and if they can earn a little money, so much the better. I'm even more in favor of this for some of the rich kids than for the poor because it would teach them to be self sufficient; some of them don't even have to make their own bed at home.
Whether or not other children would be jealous of the ones that get those jobs would depend on the wages and the conditions.
I hear repubs say that too many of the people that are unemployed stay unemployed because they refuse to take those types of jobs. You cannot have it both ways.
- 1 vote
Kids are not adults and they will usually take any job at all because they realize they cannot do much better. I LIVE in the inner city and know how they think. Even the ones who have a sneaking admiration for the drug dealers, etc., still want an actual, legitimate job right now so they can have cash in their pockets. I remember the years my now 20 year old son couldn't find work other than a few temporary assignments and how much he desperately wanted a "real job" by which he meant anything, even McDonalds. Right now he has a janitorial type position at apartment buildings and he says he's lucky to have it. The pay is pretty good. Of course he wants better eventually, which is why he is in college pursuing a career as a physical therapist.
gmross,
I don't necessarily disagree that it could eventually put more money into the economy. However, short-term, I see it as more likely to increase unemployment. Although $1.00/hr doesn't sound like much, it certainly adds up quickly. In the example I gave, four people for forty hours a week is $160 + burden. Depending on the business, that can end up being substantial money - especially start-up operations.
- 1 vote
JC,
On the upside, you might be able to hire more qualified people at the higher rate, and actually be more productive, and thus increase earning, or the current employees might be more motivated to do better as their jobs would be more desirable to others.
- 5 votes
Thank you RD, I was losing hope of getting through to JC, you have explained better than I could and in a shorter amount of time.
- 5 votes
i strongly advocate raising the pay for minimum wage workers as an attempt for them to keep up with increased living costs. however, it almost appears to be an effort in vain. everytime the minimum wage is raised the price of everything soars through the roof.
i know there are all sorts of reasons for product price increases but they always seem to correspond with the raising the minimum wage.
grocery shopping is one of the most depressing experiences i can think of. not only am i disturbed about how they're wringing my wallet but i can't help but be overwhelming concerned for those who are far worse financially than myself.
g
but they always seem to correspond with the raising the minimum wage.
it may correspond, but it doesn't mean it's cause and effect. I think at times it's an excuse to raise prices, similar to the way we see the price of gasoline fluctuate while little to do with supply and demand.
- 1 vote
@ rescue dogs62 # 1.71...
i think it's called price gouging which i thought was against the law. maybe it just depends on who's doing the gouging.
whatever the cause all of us end up the losers. like always, of course, the middle class and poor are the biggest losers.
- 2 votes
Irene, your right it would be price gouging if it happened the way you said, the minimum goes up and then the prices go up but, that is backwards to the way it happens. In the '90's the Clinton Administration started something with the minimum that insured that it would rise to meet the demand of the people recieving it, this was called the cost of living raise, whenever the cost of living would increase during a year at the end of the year the minimum would rise to compensate for the increase in the cost of living, where this failed was in the fact that congress at the time refused to increase the minimum by an amount that would have made the minimum a living wage in all states, and during the Bush years the cost of living increases were halted because of the deficit.
- 2 votes
Excuse to raise prices? Price gouging? Are you serious? Do you have any idea whatsoever about how labor costs affect the price of goods?
I think that most people realize intuitively that the company that manufactures an item rarely sells it themselves. There are typically distributors and retailers involved in the supply chain. And, surprisingly enough, each of them needs to make a profit.
Using my scenario above, let's take our four minimum wage workers who work for company X and let's assume that they can make 12000 widgets per week. All four of the workers make minimum wage of $7.50/hr (we won't bother with burden) and work 40 hours per week ($300) for a total of $1200.
So, let's assume that company X makes a widget that costs them 90 cents to make (.10 labor and .80 material/overhead) and which they sell for $0.99 (10% profit) to the distributor. Distributor Y then turns around and sells it to the retailer for $1.49 (to cover distribution costs and make a 10% profit). Retailer Z then prices the product at $3.00 to cover his labor, overhead and make a profit.
The increased labor costs for the manufacturer will add 1.3 cents per unit and will require a price increase to $1.01 in order to maintain the 10% profit margin the owner needs to be able to pay himself. (I won't even bother to address what could happen to the material costs as a result of the increased labor cost for each of the component suppliers) Distributor Y cannot afford to reduce their profits, so they must raise the price to $1.53. And, of course, Retailer Z follows suit and prices the product at $3.05 for the customer.
One thing though, if the customers aren't willing to pay more than $3.00 for that product, sales will begin to fall. And, we know what will happen at company X as a result.
But, through it all, do you know who really wins? The government. They get more payroll taxes because suddenly there are thousands more people making $1.00 more an hour. And, they collect more in sales tax from consumers as the prices rise.
@ jc # 1.74...
i admitted in comment 1.70 that there are various reasons for cost inflations. though i respect your input, i continue to believe there is some gouging involved. not only do product manufacturers raise prices, but there's notable shrinkage in their products. customers are paying more and getting less.
@ gmross # 1.73...
according to the explanation of jc, if the minimum wages were increased to a living wage the cost of products would sky rocket to an even worse degree. which sounds as though there is a definite connection between the minimum wage and the increase in prices.
- 1 vote
Irene, I agree with what you said to JC in post 1.75, there has been an increase in prices while the amount of a product has been reduced in the packaging. The thing is the increase in prices doesn't come from the company, but, from the speculators on Wall Street since the end of the Clinton Administration there have been speculators playing with the prices of everything from the food on your table to the gas to run your car, this is why you have seen a large fluctuation in the prices over the past 12 years or so.
- 2 votes
Irene,
I can't say that there is never any gouging - I'm sure there probably is. But, some of what you perceive is actually an attempt to keep prices artificially low. There are three basic components involved in the cost of a product; materials, labor and overhead. If one or more of those increase, the manufacturer must either raise the price or reduce one of the other components, in order to achieve their profit goals. So, they will reduce the number of ounces in the box, the size of the box, etc. to avoid raising the price. Many times the determination is based on historical data that suggests a price threshold. In that case, they would change material because they know they cannot increase the price because people will not pay more; however, they will still pay the same amount - even if they get less. It's odd, but the truth.
JC,
You and I both know that isn't all that's involved. I bought an antibiotic at Savon Drugs. It was $87.00 dollars for 10 tabs of 100 mgs. When it was determined I needed a higher dosage, I purchased the exact same medication at 250 mg, 20 tabs for less than $20.00 at Costco. Now I know that Costco can buy in bulk, but that is absurd.
When you throw into that mix that you described, investors buying on futures for gas, etc. it drives the price up in an artificial way.
- 1 vote
@ jc # 1.77...
sorry jc, but your either/or scenerio of raising prices or shrinking product volume is sadly not the case. they absolutely do both. if the merchandise is something that the public loves or needs, they will reluctantly pay more for less. i know this for a fact because i'm only one of the guilty ones that do.
the third possible step is, as you suggested in comment # 1.63 they may very well lay off workers. they will cut their employee staff as lean as they possibly can without affecting productivity.
this happens even in the medical field where the nurses and other medical staff are forced to work as much as double shifts because the hospital staff is kept at a minimum to pull in ginormous profit.
companies and institutions are making record profit by doing all three of the above. that's what it's all about. PROFIT.
- 2 votes
irene/rescue dog,
I can't really speak to the case of pharmaceuticals. My wife is diabetic, so I know how screwed up the pricing is for those products. But, I also think that insurance, patent law, government regulations and on-going research have a lot to do with that whole industry.
However, the scenario I described is not theory, it is fact - based on the pricing models that I use for the small manufacturing business my wife and I own. And, because of the type of work we do, we generally employ minimum wage workers - typically high school or college age kids.
You did touch on one factor that I overlooked in product pricing (because it doesn't affect our products) and that is demand. Any product that is in high demand and low availability will always command a higher price, regardless of other pricing factors. A good example of this is any product made with corn, as a result of corn being used for ethanol production - demand is higher than ever, but availability has not significantly increased.
Good seed Rescue, too bad many conservatives will be too blinded by their ideolgy to see and hear just how biggotted and racist many of the comments were.
- 32 votes
How DARE Gingrich say he wants to teach a child how to get a job, then get a better job and someday own that job! The freeking racist bigot! (sarc)
- 9 votes
The only ones who have truly helped minorities are conservatives.
I know I'm going to get a bull$hit answer, but I have to ask; How have conservatives been the only ones to help minorities?
- 19 votes
buckeye,
Mike,
I believe you used the terms Liberals and reality in the same sentence. I'm sure you didn't mean to.
You owe me for coffee soaked keyboard. Was a nice one too....bluetooth. LOL
Regards,
Mike
- 6 votes
Phil,
Because conservatives espouse policies that enable growth for all. Liberals espouse policies that entrap folks in dependency. Please note I said Conservatives, not Republicans. Redistribution of wealth does nothing to fix true income disparity...until it puts everyone at the same level...Cuban. What folks fail to mention regarding income disparity...it's not the same folks in the bottom tier. people are constantly moving up.
Regaards,
Mike
- 5 votes
Mike,
There has never been a "redistribution of wealth" in America. Our government doles out less than 3% of it's national budget on helping poor people.
By the way, that's helping people not "espousing policies that entrap folks in dependency."
- 24 votes
Lets take a look at repubs' reality.
Republican massive miserable failure in 2008....
AT LEAST A 50 TRILLION DOLLAR LOSS IN 2008.
Global Financial Assets Lost $50 Trillion Last Year, ADB Sayshttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZ1kcJ7y3LDMMost notably, MGI finds that:Falling equities accounted for virtually all of the drop in global financial assets. The world's equities lost almost half their value in 2008, declining by $28 trillion. Markets have regained some ground in recent months, replacing $4.6 trillion in value between December 2008 and the end of July 2009. Global residential real estate values fell by $3.4 trillion in 2008 and nearly $2 trillion more in the first quarter of 2009. Combining these figures, we see that declines in equity and real estate wiped out $28.8 trillion of global wealth in 2008 and the first half of 2009.
http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/MGI/Research/Financial_Markets/Global_capital_markets_entering_a_new_eraThe 244 ACCOMPLISHMENTS of PRESIDENT OBAMA
http://b4bmorenews.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-244-accomplishments-of-president.html
- 16 votes
phil,
Sorry, gonna have to disagree....especially when the "help" comes from resources forcibly stolen from one group of citizens in order to give those resources to another group...usually after an administrative overhead "rake-off." Any way you look at that, it's a recipe for disaster.
I also disagree with your 3 percent figure. Housing and Urban Development alone is more than 3 percent of the Federal Budget.
Regards
Mike
- 5 votes
Repubs know better than minorities what is good for them. No wonder they are a """whites only""" party.
- 15 votes
We have information about lowest tax states for repubs that do not want to pay any taxes. There is always Somalia,
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=lowest+tax+state&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
http://modernsurvivalblog.com/retreat-living/lowest-to-highest-taxes-by-state/
- 13 votes
Too many repubs cheer DEATH and want the poor and poor minorities to DIE QUICKLY!!!!!
- 13 votes
How DARE Gingrich say he wants to teach a child how to get a job, then get a better job and someday own that job! The freeking racist bigot! (sarc)
You know what the funniest part of your sarcasm really is?
The vast majority of children from working poor families could probably teach Newt a thing or two about work. Many teenagers from working poor families do work and probably one hell of a lot harder than Newt has ever thought of working! Many of those teens can not work at a job outside of the home because they are responsible for the care of younger siblings because their parent or parents are working two or three minimum wage jobs trying to keep food on the table for the family.
Newts views are so out of touch with what is reality for many of Americas working poor it really is pathetic especially from someone who thinks he should be President!
- 20 votes
How DARE Gingrich say he wants to teach a child how to get a job
Buckeye, I don't think you are appreciating the distinction of "teaching how to get a job" and having them work as a janitor at their school. While it's not a correct assessment, students consider janitors as almost the lowest of the low, so ignorant and so lazy that they can't find another job.
We have students committing suicide because they're teased for being gay, for being unpopular, for being weird, and you are advocating having a student be in a position where he's going to ridiculed. Kids are cruel. If you suggest that he be helped finding employment to work part time in a student book store, neighbor park services, baby sitting, dog walking,having a paper route, if they still have them these days then it would be a different issue. He is suggesting that they work as a janitor in his school, if people can't see that as insulting and racist and totally out of touch, then I think they have a problem. I wonder how many of those southern conservatives would respond if he said that THEIR child should get a job as a janitor.
- 17 votes
He is suggesting that they work as a janitor in his school, if people can't see that as insulting and racist and totally out of touch, then I think they have a problem. I wonder how many of those southern conservatives would respond if he said that THEIR child should get a job as a janitor.
Your comment is racist. All work is honorable. And YES, I would have my two daughters do this were it available. As it is, each of them held jobs starting in Junior High School. I made sure they got their hands dirty. That also reinforced respect for folks that work for you. Nothing sets me off more than someone saying things that imply a janitor is some sub human species. Having a job such as that help folks appreciate people who do that sort of work for all of us.
Regards,
Mike
- 5 votes
Mike, nobody has forcibly stolen anything from you. Taxes are the price civilized people pay to live in a civilized society. But yes, it's true there has been a redistribution of wealth -- from the bottom to the top. Since Reagan, taxes have been reduced on those who can most afford them and put onto the backs of those who least can -- and a lot of so-called serious pundits still don't think the poor are squeezed hard enough.
- 15 votes
@ mike 1499840 # 2.10...
i disagree with your characterizing taxes used to assist those in need as resources "stolen" from others.
we live in a society where taxation is necessary to maintain our infrastructure and offer safety nets to our people to prevent them from being forced to beg in the streets as in third world countries.
i fail to understand why you feel that giving the needy a helping hand is in some way epousing dependency. there are a few that choose to live permanently off the government dole but this is by their choice, not by government entrapment. those needing help through no fault of their own should not be condemned.
many americans receiving assistance are in the ranks of the working poor. their low wages are such they're unable to support their families.
as republicans demand cuts (and no taxes on the wealthy) future layoffs of government workers will inflate the welfare rolls even more.
since you're against government aid, explain what should happen to the misfortunate in this country? i'll await your honest answer.
- 8 votes
The answer from too many repubs would be: LET THEM DIE QUICKLY!!!! They cheer DEATH.
- 7 votes
LOL the racists and bigots in the GOP have become emboldened by the lack of condemnation by their fellow GOPers for their disgusting behavior at the debates. These wannabe GOP candidates need these racists because most of them are racist themselves. The GOP just keeps sinking deeper and deeper into its pit of despicability
- 10 votes
To Mike & all the other Teapublicans who feel that liberal policies keep minorities poor & dependent I have only one question... If thats the case could you explain why whites in Appalachia remain some of the poorest in this country?
- 8 votes
I find it interesting that you would call anyone who is working a job , lazy and ignorant . I believe the majority of people would have more respect for some one working as a janitor with a masters degree , then some one with a masters degree sitting on their ass and complaining about finding a job . Since when is a masters degree a guarantee of wealth and good fortune or any degree for that matter . A persons inter strength and determination will carry you further than any degree . I agree that an educated person has an advantage , but if you don't have the fortitude and determination to press on ( no matter what ) forget it , you will lose . That my friend is the greatness of America .
I've seen men and women with forth grade educations , be very successful , because of their intelligence and hard work . The day we lose that will be the day our Nation will be full of lazy ass people with big egos who will take everything men and women work for , in the name of Progress . We are well on our way to that State , with Government controlling every aspect of our lives . I for one will do every thing I can to stop this and give our children and grand children a chance at FREEDOM .
- 1 vote
While it's not a correct assessment, students consider janitors as almost the lowest of the low, so ignorant and so lazy that they can't find another job.
A lot of janitors probably make more money then probably you and me. My uncle.. a janitor at a public school made 24 dollars and hour....
- 2 votes
yes but SR, under Gingrich's plan your uncle would be fired and replaced with 3rd graders:
“Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor and pay local students to take care of the school. The kids would actually do work, they would have cash, they would have pride in the schools, they’d begin the process of rising.” (emphasis mine)
- 7 votes
ol doc gold I understand he dosen't like Unions and I don't agree with him on that. I've been a Teamster and currently in IBU (a division of ILWU). Although I can see both sides of the argument though.
We seem to have a new kind of racism rearing its ugly head these days, if you don't have the money to insure that your kids go to the best schools and live in the best neighborhoods then tuff luck, get ready to have your kids go to work like the kids of the early 1900's. Just a little clip of why we have child labor laws in this country.
The National Child Labor Committee, an organization dedicated to the abolition of all child labor, was formed in 1904. By publishing information on the lives and working conditions of young workers, it helped to mobilize popular support for state-level child labor laws. These laws were often paired with compulsory education laws which were designed to keep children in school and out of the paid labor market until a specified age (usually 12, 14, or 16 years.)
In 1914 the Arkansas state Federation of Labor placed a child welfare initiative on the ballot prohibiting child labor, which the voters passed.[3]
In 1916, the NCLC and the National Consumers League successfully pressured the US Congress to pass the Keating-Owen Act, the first federal child labor law. However, the US Supreme Court struck down the law two years later in Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), declaring that the law violated a child's right to contract his or her own labor. In 1924, Congress attempted to pass a constitutional amendment that would authorize a national child labor law. This measure was blocked, and the bill was eventually dropped.
It took the Great Depression to end child labor nationwide; adults had become so desperate for jobs that they would work for the same wage as children. In 1938, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Fair Labor Standards Act, which, among other things, placed limits on many forms of child labor.
[edit] Currently
Human rights organizations have documented child labor in USA. According to a 2009 petition by Human Rights Watch: "Hundreds of thousands of children are employed as farmworkers in the United States, often working 10 or more hours a day. They are often exposed to dangerous pesticides, experience high rates of injury, and suffer fatalities at five times the rate of other working youth. Their long hours contribute to alarming drop-out rates. Government statistics show that barely half ever finish high school. According to the National Safety Council, agriculture is the second most dangerous occupation in the United States. However, current US child labor laws allow child farmworkers to work longer hours, at younger ages, and under more hazardous conditions than other working youths.
Now, imagine this going on in every work place in the country.
- 28 votes
Thanks for the information gmross. In America we consider what Newt is suggesting child abuse.
- 28 votes
" In America we consider what Newt is suggesting child abuse"
So I shouldn't have my kids help clean my shop? That's now child abuse? Shi. and I thought I was teaching them that if you want money, you have to work for it.
- 2 votes
@buckeyenut
Of course you can treat your children as mini-slaves. There's a lot of leeway for kids working in family businesses, especially in agriculture.
The question is whether you'd like to have YOUR job given to a child working for a tiny percentage of what you make? Don't say a kid couldn't handle your job. If your job doesn't require higher education, then you'd get the soup line. That's what happened in turn of the century sweat shops. Who would hire an adult for a couple of bucks a day if they can get a kid for a few cents.
- 21 votes
So I shouldn't have my kids help clean my shop? That's now child abuse?
Do you have your children in an orphange and working as children did before labor laws were passed? Newt is not talking about household and family chores.
- 24 votes
" Don't say a kid couldn't handle your job"
Ok, I will not say it but I will type it. A child can't handle my job since I'm self employed and not many children have the money it takes to do what I do not to mention they are not of legal age to sign the contracts I sign. Sorry you're wrong. NEXT.
- 1 vote
In America we consider what Newt is suggesting child abuse.
Naaah. Real Americans consider it...growing up.
Regards,
Mike
- 3 votes
Tell ya what, I'll teach all 3 of my kids to work and you do whatever it is you do and we'll see where they end up. I'm betting my kids make a good living AND know the value of a dollar. If any of my kids want to get paid to do clean up work at school, I'll drive them there on Saturday if they want.
- 2 votes
Buckeye,
I'm with you. I'd sign mine up for this in a New York minute.
Regards,
Mike
- 3 votes
" Don't say a kid couldn't handle your job"
Ok, I will not say it but I will type it.
Of course you should since you know what my job is.(sarc)
Naaah. Real Americans consider it...growing up.
Children are not grownups and when grownups get so lazy they want children to do adult jobs they are also not grownups.
- 18 votes
RFA,
"Of course you should since you know what my job is"
Pardon but what the fulk are you talking about?
- 1 vote
Mike,
I think I know what the problem is, we don't consider work to be a dirty word.
- 1 vote
My sentiments exactly in regards to your comment. What were you talking about when you said don't say a child cannot handle my job? Or do you know what you said?
- 8 votes
I think I know what the problem is, we don't consider work to be a dirty word.
To me....and I think probably you, Work = Opportunity?
Regards,
Mike
- 2 votes
RFA,
These little " thingy's are qoutation marks meaning the words that follow are not my words but the words of another. I was replying to post 3.3 where the poster wrote " Don't say a kid couldn't handle your job. If your job doesn't require higher education, then you'd get the soup line"
So again I have to ask, what are you talking about?
- 1 vote
"To me....and I think probably you, Work = Opportunity"
Absolutely!
RFA,
These little " thingy's are qoutation marks meaning the words that follow are not my words but the words of another. I was replying to post 3.3 where the poster wrote " Don't say a kid couldn't handle your job. If your job doesn't require higher education, then you'd get the soup line"
You must be new to the Vine. Next to the B for bold and I for Italics is the symbol used on the Vine for quotations. It will appear as you see I have quoted you above. I also brought in your Vine handle. That is how quotations are done here so people know you are responding to someone and not making a statement of your own.
- 11 votes
Mike, Buckeyenut, tell me would you consider letting one of your kids work in a mill for ten hours a day six days a week for half pay? Or, would you consider having them go into a coal mine for the same ten hours a day for 2 dollars an hour? This is what Newt "the lizard" Gingrich is talking about, not cleaning their fathers shops, or cleaning the yard.
- 16 votes
gm,
If you wish to have an intelligent discussion, then you need to quit lying. Gingrich said no such thing. He clearly said, janitorial work at the school. He was very clear about that. Again, please stop lying.
Regards,
Mike
- 1 vote
Pat,
but with the obvious lack of critical thinking here you may be wasting your time.
I know there are some really divergent opinions on this board, however I always ask for respect for other posters even if one totally disagrees with the position, on my seeds.
Thanks
- 2 votes
I always ask for respect for other posters
Sorry. I just find willful ignorance really annoying. Out of respect for you, I'll refrain from commenting further.
- 6 votes
Pat,
Thanks, for your reply, but please don't refrain from commenting. I always appreciate your view, just don't make it personal
- 2 votes
I believe several of you are taking Newt's comments out of context, and inflating them to the worst possible case.
Getting an after-school job as a janitor does not equate to working ten hours a day at a mill. A job like that is a good contrast to the academic work they do in school.It also provides a good reason to continue ones education so as not to have to do janitorial work all your life.
Yes, some other, better-off kids may make snide remarks, but heck, that's life. Better to learn it now than grow up with the expectation that life owes you a living. (Sorry if that sounds racist)
- 3 votes
gmross,
"Mike, Buckeyenut, tell me would you consider letting one of your kids work in a mill for ten hours a day six days a week for half pay"
IF that was what Gingrich stated, I'd say no but since it is not it doesn't serve any good to debate this comment. I don't recall Gingrich stating he wants kids to work 10 hours a days as a janitor and to even imply it is ridiculous.
- 1 vote
If Gingrich keeps labor laws intact then I can see your points buckeyenut and Mike, but, if Gingrich becomes POTUS and repeals the labor laws then it is open season on kids of any age to end up working as I stated above, yes, Gingrich only stated that he wanted kids to work as janitors, but, he was also using janitors because he as he stated, "he had talked to New York janitors and found out how much they made." and he knew that he could hire a dozen or so kids to replace one New York janitor. In other words the kids can work cheaper and for longer hours than an adult, this can be accomplished if there aren't any labor laws anymore. Look around at the different states with Republicans running them, what is happening in those states, they are trying to repeal as many labor laws as they can right now and introduce "right to work" laws, Gingrich and friends have stated they would like to go back to a simpler time, and I believe that time is the early 1900's when there weren't such inconvenient things as labor laws.
- 8 votes
gmross,
States have labor laws. The president will not override the state labor laws.
- 1 vote
buckeyenut,
gmross,
States have labor laws. The president will not override the state labor laws.
Yes, they do, but, if you have been listening to the news lately you would know that most red states at this time are trying to overturn these laws.
- 8 votes
buckeyenut-2225921
Newt already said he'd fire liberal judges,so your reasoning isn't valid.
Anyone who knows Newt and his liking of orphanages,knows that it's more like punishment to clean the school restrooms.I'm sure the school Jock would be the first to volunteer for the job,knowing he'd have the most pull.(No Pun intended).
As I have said in other Newt articles, toilets surly would have handles missing and floors wet most of the time, as well as the cafeteria trash cans being obsolete. Then there's the smoking issue, and the intimidation factor.
Would it be ok if your Sons or Daughters did that kind of humility work? I wonder how they would feel about it. Ask them and let me know what they think.
- 6 votes
Buckeye and Mike,
I have found your little "mutual admiration" exchange interesting. I can find nowhere on here that anyone is suggesting that a child shouldn't have responsibilities when they're growing up, whether it be household chores, babysitting, paper route, washing neighbors vehicles, passing out flyers, or at your local Sub, etc. You are missing the condescension of Gingrich, and his assumption that if you're on food stamps you are lazy and shiftless. I live in California and some of the hardest workers I've ever run into are the Hispanics. I'm talking, for example, Hispanic, legal not illegal, who have gardening services, and when school is out, the very young come along, and work. In other families they babysit, clean, and take care of younger ones while the parents hold down multiple jobs.
Now back to your pats on the back.
- 10 votes
You won't hear Gingrich disparage Hispanics in the way he has the African American community--he's still hoping Hispanics will vote for him.
- 10 votes
You won't hear Gingrich disparage Hispanics in the way he has the African American community
Only some African Americans , not all !
buckeyenut-2225921
Comment collapsed by the community
Comment collapsed by the communityPlease explain to me why it is not racist to state that African Americans are "satisfied" with food stamps. Those were Newt's words.
Only some African Americans , not all !
Funny, Newt didn't disparage any white people.
- 10 votes
trm2008:
let me cue you in on the mindset of the teapublicans:
poor black people on food stamps=lazy and without a work ethic
poor white people on food stamps= victims of Obama's economic policy
see? now it makes sense!
- 8 votes
Buckeye,
My comment that I believe you are missing an issue,
and your statement that
I think your meds from your recent cardiac surgery are affecting your reading and hearing. You might want to ask the doctor next time he walks in.
If you want to start a little battle of insults, I'm all in.
Are hardly equal. I don't see my comment as a battle of insults, however your comments about my surgery, and current status I find really offensive.
Just as a reminder, this is my seed. If you don't want to have a decent exchange then I would suggest you might want to go elsewhere. If you attack me personally one more time, then you will be deleted and then you can take it up with administration.
- 8 votes
I believe you are seeing more than what is really there.
buckeyenut-2225921, that was fine, this, not so much.
I think your meds from your recent cardiac surgery are affecting your reading and hearing. You might want to ask the doctor next time he walks in.
Don't propose battles of insults. You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
- 9 votes
speaking of your surgery...when are you going to have it done??? you said you were going to be off for a couple of months.
just curious...not trying to get ammo to insult you or anything.
Marshall,
Had it on the 9th, my aortic valve replaced. Was transferred to a cardiac rehab center 2 days ago, so I'm literally typing this from my hospital bed. Didn't think I would be back on the Vine so soon, but it provides such a distraction from the pain. Maybe that has a little to do with my crankiness, if that's how I'm coming across.
Why, did you miss me?....*batting lashes*, lol
- 11 votes
lol
well its good to see you have your humor intact....and your spirit of blasting on republicans..lol.
wishing you the best....keep yourself occupied...do what your md and therapist tell you to do and all will be good.
peace.
- 2 votes
You are missing the condescension of Gingrich, and his assumption that if you're on food stamps you are lazy and shiftless.
and BLACK, according to Gingrich and Sanitarium Santorum. Talk about pandering to the audience!
- 7 votes
Hey, rescue dogs62, hoping for your speedy recovery. You're tough! Vining at the hospital :-)
- 4 votes
#3.42:Thank you Radio, and Marshall.
Hey cutie, sorry to hear about your hospitalization - but glad that you're doing better!
Hoping you a speedy recovery and that you'll be better than ever. Rest while you recuperate- there'll never be a better time.
- 4 votes
there was a time when it was exceptable for kids to learn work ethics and make money at home (called an allowance). helping out in the family business was also a way to acquire good work habits.
back then it was more about attaining work habits and not so much about making a lot of money. how things change.
actually i think newt's scheme to have children taking the place of union workers and other adults, has more to do with making money for the one's ( the 1%...maybe) paying the wages than those who are working for them.
it's no secret that the gop's concern lies with the big makers and doesn't give a rip for the poor. who's he fooling? oh yeah, poor republicans followers.
- 4 votes
@ mike 1499840...
i'm still waiting for your response to my question in comment 2.18. i asked since you characterize government assistance as 'stealing from some to give to others'; what is your suggestion for dealing with the poor? i would truly appreciate an answer.
- 2 votes
The plan that too many repubs have regarding the poor is: Let them DIE QUICKLY!!!!!
rescue dogs62
Hope you feel better. Get well soon. Having a life threatening illness does make one see the real picture.I've been there.You never know who's next in line. Vining on your hospital bed shows how passionate you really are for trying to make a difference in the lives of others.Thanks for your opinions,and keep up the great support on the Vine.
- 2 votes
Hey rescue dogs, how much longer are you going to be stuck in there? Not much longer I hope.
- 2 votes
gm,
Maybe another week if I behave myself.....hmmmm....just what I'm known for ;}
- 2 votes
The irony couldn't have been more profound: last night's GOP presidential debate was held on Martin Luther King Jr.,
And that is what makes it worse...
- 19 votes
#4 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:32 PM ESTDear Friend SS: Agreed. It is besmirching the legacy of the great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King to push racially charged agendas on his day.
Enoch.
- 18 votes
Mike-1499840 Comment collapsed by the community
Comment collapsed by the communitythe worst moment by far was when Ron Paul was booed when talking of the golden rule....
each religion has its own version.....I am just wondering if south carolina is full of antichristians who hate mankind.
Christianity
All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1
Confucianism
Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2
Buddhism
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism
This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah
Judaism
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism
Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
- 16 votes
the worst moment by far was when Ron Paul was booed when talking of the golden rule....
Actually, it was quite the heartening moment. It was nice to see that some folks realize that the golden rule doesn't apply to relations among nations. This is (yet) another area Liberals seem to have difficulty with. Relations among nations are NOT the same as relations among individuals. There IS no moral equivalence between Israel's position and Iran's. There is no moral equivalence between our posession of nuclear weapons and Iran's. We need them and we have the right to prevent them from getting them.
This is something Obama needs to understand...His number ONE priority is to ensure the security of the United States. To do that, he must be respected by the world. He is not. He is percieved as weak and inexperienced. That's dangerous.
Regards,
Mike
Regards,
Mike
- 4 votes
what are nations made up of???
individuals
I rest my case.
the complete ignorance of invading and occupying 130 countries without expectation of any blowback is mind numbing to me.
and this lack of intelligence which is complete ignorance...will be the end of the current republican party as we know it.
- 13 votes
Marshall,
I would suggest you review the DIME model of international power as a basic starting point. When you have done so and can discuss with some of the basic tools/knowledge required, we can continue this more productively.
Regards,
Mike
- 1 vote
I would suggest reading the 9/11 commission and CIA reports on blowback.
regards
Marshall
- 11 votes
Marshall,
I have...the classified...not for public release versions. But thanks for the suggestion. I won't claim blowback is not any kind of factor, but it is minimal. It all really starts with Islam as a religion/political movement that is essentially where Christianity was during the crusades....Using religion as an excuse to gain and dominate terrain.
A subset of that is the Palestinian "excuse." Bottom line, most of the Arab populations in the area hate the Palestinain people and don't want them on their land. Which is why they are making Israel the bad guy and hence our support for Israel makes us the great Satan.
Another dynamic is the Sunni-Shia divide and then on top of that...the Persian-Arab divide. Oh yeah....a totally bizarre method of drawing straight lines across the desert to create countries post WWI, didn't help matters either.
In short, there's a lot more going on over there than blowback would account for. Our biggest mistake this past 50 years? Not making good use of Turkey. We should have gone to the mat for them when they tried to get into the EU. They could have been an awesome bridge between us and the rest of the Arab states. I've been there several times....great place, nice people.
Regards,
Mike
Do repubs really expect the 7 billion people on the planet to continue importing products from a country that goes around invading other countries and that thinks that they should held to different standards?? Why should they??
Mike-1499840 What would you if you attack Iran and Russia and China side with Iran?
- 7 votes
alex,
We'd be in deep doodoo if that happened. Problem is, we don't seem to have enough oomph to get Russia and China to back us on this Nuke issue. The Iranians know this...This makes the probability of armed conflict more likely, not less.
I have absolutely no desire to get into a ground war in Iran. It would definitely not be the walk in the park our 20 days to Baghdad was. It's all cross compartment. We'd be bogged down forever and the casualties would be astronomical...with or without Sino/Russo help.
Regards,
Mike
- 1 vote
mike
blowback is minimal???
lmao....to religous zealots....if you do things to piss them off....like occupy their holy land...blowback is not minimal.
again....I suggest you read cia reports on blowback and the 9/11 commission.
or I guess.....9/11 was just a minimal retaliation??
cool.
- 5 votes
He is not. He is percieved as weak and inexperienced.
By you and yours....you don't speak for the world, nor for all the citizens of other countries.
- 6 votes
Problem is, we don't seem to have enough oomph to get Russia and China to back us on this Nuke issue.
Perhaps you might familiarize yourself with China's response to our latest sanctions, and also the EU.
- 7 votes
Where is the hate that the Egyptians feel towards the Palestinians??
It may take two to tango but in the case of Egyptian-Israeli relations, the dance is a three-way one, with the Palestinians making up the hate triangle. Despite the generally pessimistic tone of the Israeli discourse on the Egyptian revolution, Israel is not a passive bystander and can do much to improve future ties with Egypt, namely by working towards or reaching a just resolution with the Palestinians, the thorn in the side of Egyptian-Israeli ties.
Palestinians and Israelis need to awaken to their own power and unlock their dormant potential to steer their own destiny towards peace and reconciliation, through mass, peaceful joint activism. Likewise, ordinary Egyptians need to cast aside their ideological opposition to dealing with Israelis and help facilitate and mediate such a "people's peace".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/26/egypt-israel-palestine-peace
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14946179
Support was strongest in Egypt, where 90% were in favour and only 9% opposed.
- 1 vote
Marshall,
Last I looked, we are not...and have not occupied their Holy land. Last I looked, we helped those same folks kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan. This "occupy their holy land" is the same crock of BS as the Palestinian issue is. It is a made up excuse by a bunch of wackos who who have visions of grandeur. You hit the nail on the head...religious zealots...folks who have no real sense of reality. The only way to deal with them is kill them and/or get other nations to help you marginalize them.
Rescue dog,
Actually, the rest of the world does perceive him as weak...cases in point...Iran...Russia (to be fair tho...Bush started that mess), Libya, Egypt...Syria. The list goes on.
Regards,
Mike
- 1 vote
Is saying that blowback is minimal based on the assumption that the populations of other countries are stupid or masochistic??
- 4 votes
The European Union is getting weaker. BRICS is surging. Weakness (of the US and its allies) is not a perception, it is a reality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16332115
Brazilian economy overtakes UK's, says CEBR
A large part of Brazil's economy relies on the production of commodities
- Brazil has overtaken the UK as the world's sixth largest economy, an economic research group has said.
- 3 votes
alex,
Where is the hate that the Egyptians feel towards the Palestinians??
Have a look at the history of Jordan/Trans Jordan...UN mandates that created Israel & Opportunity for a Palestinian State absent a historical homeland that predated anyone else's.
Bottom line...Palestinains were tossed out by Egyptians, Jordanians and just about everybody else. Israel is just a convenient and unjustly accused whipping boy....for the most part. They are by no means perfect however.
Regards,
Mike
- 1 vote
Weakness (of the US and its allies) is not a perception, it is a reality.
On that...I agree with you in large part.
Regards,
Mike
Ask bin laden if he perceived that President Obama was weak.
- 5 votes
Ask bin laden if he perceived that President Obama was weak.
Again, I agree with you. Here is my question to you....How much credibility do you think that go President Obama internationally....
Regards,
Mike
How much credibility do you think that go President Obama internationally...
Hmmmm,
might we consider Egypt and Libya? Might we consider the increased sanctions on Iran....hmmm because he doesn't choose to go in unilaterally with guns blazing, and half cocked, without adequate information, many, many people admire him.
- 5 votes
#4.1:Dear Friend SS: Agreed. It is besmirching the legacy of the great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King to push racially charged agendas on his day. Enoch.
I can see it as an intended slander to Dr.King and what he stood for: PEACE. It only shows how disrespectful they really are.
But it doesn't surprise me as they attempt to show disrespect to anyone of color whenever they can. What they don't see is that it only makes them look smaller than they already are - if that is at all possible!
- 3 votes
child labor is for pregnant women
belaboring a childish point of view, now that is desperation
chores build work ethic, a healthy family living on wages that encourage a well adjusted homelife, and eliminating the, uh, vital threats to a family, that is where we grow and educate families
and what are vital threats, insecurity with regards to keeping your home, keeping your job, and maintaining your health, and a value based education
none of this is rocket science, we live crisis to crisis because that is the way our leaders like it
- 11 votes
#6 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:28 PM ESTGingrich is a slob. I'm happy this will be the last year we will ever have our senses drenched in his archaic and racist slime.
- 13 votes
#7 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:45 PM ESTHis slime trail will still be visible on the money he gets as a consultant, such as the $$$ millions he pulled in from services rendered as an extortionist historian to places like Fannie and Freddie though.
- 5 votes
Gingrich knows the power of stereotypes and myths, especially those that pit people against each other.
- 4 votes
Wow, as this moves southeast, it is amazing how the crowd reaction changes...
- 1 vote
#9 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:50 PM ESTWhen the Republicans come up with some jobs for all the parents THEN they can worry about child labor.
- 10 votes
#11 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:59 PM ESTLove it. Enough said. May be they want the children to work at a lower rate so they can layoff even more parents.
- 8 votes
Well, about the only alternative is making the elderly work until they die or become too infirm. Have you not noticed that's where we're headed? Have you gotten your Social Security statements lately? Have you noticed the increases in retirement eligibility age? Have you also noticed the decreases in benefits?
While you have able bodies people sucking it dry while working under the table, the ones who did the paying will die in poverty. Once the dollar collapses, it will all go away and we won't have anything to fight over. We'll just be trying to survive and at that point, the only safety nets will be rations and martial law, if we're lucky.
- 3 votes
There is so much outrage from the right when the racism of this republican campaign is called out. The difference between this election and others since the republicans adopted their "southern strategy" is that the racial undertones are no longer covert. These candidates have made every effort to embrace racists and bigots. They have used rhetoric that is designed to inpugn and denigrate minorities. They have been an embarrassment to this country.
All of the arguments and complaints from our conservative friends here on the vine cannot and will not change the ugliness of this republican campaign.
- 11 votes
#12 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:06 PM ESTAll of the arguments and complaints from our conservative friends here on the vine cannot and will not change the ugliness of this republican campaign.
The campaign is just starting...........................
- 2 votes
Doc Phil
Can you be specific? Can you point out a single instance last night that showed racism? It seems like you and others are reading-in meanings that are not there.
Have you forgotten Herman Cain so quickly? He was among the leaders a short time ago, until his past caught up to him. He had the support of white and black GOP members.
littleboyblue
No one claims that everyone in the republican party is a racist. That would be a generalization that is absurd. What I am inferring is that the candidates that the republicans are now fielding for national office have made an appeal to the racists among us. Discussions of "the food stamp President", with the implication that this is a conscious effort to enslave minorities is disingenuous to say the least and racist at it's core. 71% of the people in this country receiving food stamps are not minorities.
The claims that Ron Paul has enumerated in his newsletter are vile, racist, anti-semitic screeds. Mr. Perry has had to squirm out of the name of a family ranch, that to him was just another word. Not a single one of these candidates have rejected the endorsements that have come their way from organizations like the American Nazi Party, Stormfront, Church of the Creator, and any of over 100 different groups cited as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
These candidates have supported lack of health care for minorities who happen to be poor. They have supported a foreign policy in which all who proscribe to Islam are deemed enemies. They and their audiences have shown disrespect and downright bigotry to LBGT individuals. They have all supported lowering the amount of public money being given to inner city public schools in favor of voucher systems that meet the needs of a few.
As the compendium of action and the litany of statements begins to weigh heavily on the shoulders of the American people, the protestations that these republican candidates are not appealing to man's basest racist instincts can no longer be denied.
- 8 votes
Have you forgotten Herman Cain so quickly?
"Some of my best friends are black."
- 6 votes
DocPhil
Thank you for a well written response to my inquiry, and one done without the vitriol which seems to be the stock answer for many on the Vine. However, as you might guess, I disagree with yiour conclusions.
Calling President Obama the 'food stamp president' is not racist. It is a way of pointing out that under Obama, more Americans are having to rely on food stamps. That's all Americans. As you yourself point out, 71% of the recipients are white.
I am unaware of fringe groups endorsing any candidate, but I'll assume it is true. Didn't groups like ACORN and Planned Parenthood endorse Obama in 2008. Did he disavow any of them? As for the name used on the ranch that Gov. Perry is associated with: As I recall, it incorporated the N-word. Do you realize that the N-word is almost gone from most white people's vocabulary, but is used by most blacks on a regular basis.
The GOP has been opposed to Obamacare, that is true. Because at it's base, it is another tax-and-spend, social engineering program, with Marxist overtones.
The GOP supports school vouchers which would help minorities escape the sub-standard educational system that has evolved in many of our cities.
As for the positions taken by the candidates or the party on LBGT issues: How is that racist? Gender confusion exists across all races.
As to the Islamic issue: We all know that on a world-wide basis, society is being attacked by elements of radical Islam. There is a daily stream of suicide bombings, "honor" killings and beheadings. 911 was not caused by Swiss water-skiers, or Laotian cafe owners. Whoever is president has to deal with the issues and that starts by acknowledging the problem.
Discussion is good.....Allow me to respond to some of your comments:
You comment on Mr. Gingrich's statement that President Obama being the "food-stamp president" is not a racist statement. There are many who disagree based, not on the fact that the number of people receiving food-stamps has increased, but on the concurrent positions that Mr. Gingrich has taken in regard to ending assistance programs to urban areas. His policy goals matched with his coded statements are seen by many, both in the middle and on the left, as being racist.
You asked me about ACORN and Planned Parenthood endorsements of President Obama in 2008. ACORN did not make endorsements although some of the unions involved did and they did endorse Obama. The difference was that neither of these organizations was considered a hate group. Their agenda's have always been positive. Even the supposed scandal at ACORN with James O'Keefe that led to an unfortunate jumping of the shark by congress {O'Keefe's allegations have since been proved to be untrue and doctored}. No candidate ever disavows the endorsement of legitimate groups, even if those groups are polarizing. Groups, however, that are recognized as hate groups are another story. Up until this year, candidates have routinely disavowed any support of these groups.
The Affordable Care Act {a.k.a. Obamacare} has been a true whipping boy of conservatives in this cycle. What constantly surprises me is that not a single republican recognizes that the ACA is, almost exactly the same proposal offered by the Republican Senate Leadership led by Trent Lott and John McCain in 1994 as their preferred medical care act to stop Hillarycare at that time. It has become another one of those issues that when it was a republican proposal was wonderful but when it was accepted by the democrats it became poisonous.
School vouchers are a canard that has been thrown around the educational community for quite a few years as a pro-minority piece of legislation. It is exactly the opposite. Let me explain. I will use a hypothetical urban school district which has, for argument's sake, has 10,000 students. We can assume that the education of each of those students will cost the federal/state/and local governments $7000 each to educate each year. That would give our hypothetical school district about $70,000,000 for their schools. A comparable suburban district might provide about $11,000 a year to educate the same number of students. That would make the income of the richer district $110,000,000. A $40,000,000 difference. Now it is argued that vouchers would allow the students in the urban district to go to private or parochial schools. Students would get a voucher for $7000 and could go to any school they wish. The program is going to start with the provision of vouchers for 1000 students. An investment of $7,000,000 dollars. It sounds like a good program. Classes will get smaller and many students will get a better education, right. Wrong.
The problem with this system is multifold. First, students from that district who are already attending the private and parochial schools are also eligible for the voucher. So 1000 students is not a real number. The $7,000,000 that goes to the program comes out of the urban school's budget. That means there is now $63,000,000 in the budget instead of 70 million. Only about half the proscribed number of students are new students to the private and parochial school system. That leaves 9500 in the public school system with less money and somewhat equivilent expenses. The total number of students leaving the system doesn't lower class size significantly enough to eliminate classes. Therefore less money is now available to educate each student. It should also be noted that the parochial and private schools can deny entry to any student of their choosing and could expel a student for any violation. The student then has to return to the public school. One other bit of information. National statistics in a study by the University of Wisconsin and another by the University of Pittsburgh have shown no significant difference between educational achievement of vouchered students and unvouchered students.
That is not a pro-education position for urban, minority students.
The other issue I'll respond to is the Islamic issue. Yes, most terrorists we are aware of are Muslim. However, the great majority of Muslim's are not terrorists. To paint an entire group of people with a single brush stroke is, to me, the definition of racism. Paint the terrorists as terrorists. Include the abortion clinic bombers, the animal rights bombers, the Oklahoma City bombers as the criminal terrorists they are. But we should never paint any group with the same broad stroke.
I look forward to other discussions with you. We can agree to disagree and still have a spirited debate.
- 4 votes
We don't have a work ethic problem in America. We have a wage and income distribution problem, and we have Republicans who like it that way.
- 11 votes
#13 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:16 PM ESTI have yet to meet a Republican that likes it that way. Can you provide any credible evidence to back up your statement?
- 1 vote
Where have you been??
Income redistribution the GOP way: continue Bush tax cuts, abolish Medicare
http://underthemountainbunker.com/2011/05/24/income-redistribution-the-gop-way-continue-bush-tax-cuts-abolish-medicare/Both the Democratic and Republican Party positions on a number of key issuesof the day reflect their underlying philosophical foundations. The Republican beliefs inless government, economic survival of the fittest, and less income distribution, as wellas the Democratic beliefs in larger government and greater income redistribution to helpless fortunate Americans are embedded in their differing positions on the followingissues:
Both the Democratic and Republican Party positions on a number of key issuesof the day reflect their underlying philosophical foundations. The Republican beliefs inless government, economic survival of the fittest, and less income distribution, as wellas the Democratic beliefs in larger government and greater income redistribution to helpless fortunate Americans are embedded in their differing positions on the following issues:
Romney: Income inequality is just 'envy'
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/12/news/economy/romney_envy/index.htmhttp://proglib.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/12/10143735-romney-income-inequality-is-just-envy-jan-12-2012?last=1326813307&threadId=3318801&sp=0&pc=25#last_1
- 2 votes
Perhaps I don't actually understand what you mean by "wage and income distribution problem". Can you define what that means to you? (It honestly sounds like a problem getting your payroll check on time, though I'm certain that's not what you mean)
Alex -
Have you ever owned a business? Do you have any idea how wages affect the price of a product?
If you were having work done on your house and you had two equally qualified companies that could do the work, would you choose the least expensive one? Or, would you pay more for the same service?
Why would you expect an employer to be any different? If two workers are equally skilled, why would an employer take the one that demands a higher wage?
That being said, I still do not understand what you mean by "wage and income distribution problem". Your responses thus far have been exceptionally uninformative.
So it's racist to suggest someone can do better for themself if they put in the effort? Next thing you know chocolate chip cookies will be racist.
Can you quote someone who stated that? I heard Newt insinuate that liberals say that, but I've never heard a liberal say it or be quoted saying it.
- 5 votes
Majority of posters on this seed have implied such. it appears to be the entire topic of this seed. conservative offers work ethic idea, Liberals immediately claim racism.
Regards,
mike
So it's racist to suggest someone can do better for themself if they put in the effort?
No, it's racist promote the false assumption that the "someone" you are talking about is black.
- 6 votes
it's racist to suggest someone can do better for themself if they put in the effort?
It's the automatic assumption that they DON'T put in effort.
- 8 votes
Majority of posters on this seed have implied such.
Examples?
- 2 votes
Repoman
No it is racist when you know that access to education and employment have been systematically blocked for the very people you are denigrating with your statements.
And the whole JUUAN thing was just a substitute for Boy or N+*%&R Mr. Williams should have slapped his FAT A$$
Since Black America has it so good hey come join us we obviously have the secret to happiness in America. a lot of you are beginning to sicken me. Your fantasy of a world without people of color is about to turn into your worst nightmare, if you don't get a grip soon!
- 7 votes
Your misguided belief that people actually fantasize about a world without people of color is at the very heart, soul and core of racism.
- 1 vote
Palmquist - that's simply absurd and ridiculous and you know it. What would possibly make you think that it would be a good or reasonable thing to make a statement like that?
I see a lot of repubs around here that say that the US was better off in the 1700s and 1800s. They say that they want to go back to the original constitution.
- 4 votes
Alex,
If you try hard enough you can try to twist their words to mean that, but it has nothing to do with the truth. But, yes, they do want a return to constitutional principles, such as a small Federal government. Continuing down the current path will ultimately lead to financial ruin. The ever-expanding, bloated government we have is too costly and intrusive.
But, yes, they do want a return to constitutional principles, such as a small Federal government.
Since when? Since this campaign season started?
- 4 votes
Nope. For much longer than that. But it is nearly impossible to get law makers to do what is necessary to make it happen.... seems they like the power once they get into office.
Nope. For much longer than that.
Funny, there is no evidence to support that claim. Maybe you meant the repubs like to talk about smaller government, but they don't actually do anything to achieve that.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
Reagan grew govt.
So did Bush.
Contrary to popular myth, every Republican president since and including Herbert Hoover has increased the federal government's size, scope, or power--and usually all three. Over the last one hundred years, of the five presidents who presided over the largest domestic spending increases, four were Republicans. Include regulations and foreign policy, as well as budgets approved by a Republican Congress, and a picture begins to emerge of the Republican Party as a reliable engine of government growth.
- 4 votes
When you said you see a lot of Republicans that say those things I didn't realize you meant Reagan and Bush....... oh, that's right, you didn't.
The people espousing that belief (the ones that you are talking about) are the constituents. The problem is getting the people that are elected to actually do what they say they are going to do.
It sounds good on paper, but when they go to Washington, the only constituents they have are lobbyists.
- 3 votes
trm - I certainly hope you aren't fooled into believing that only applies to Republicans.
That debate shows how racist some white people are especially in the Republican Party. And that's a damn shame. They said that they want to take their country back. I put NOTHING past these people. You call these racist people out and they don't care anymore. The GOP is just ensuring that a Democrat will be elected President for the next 12-16 years.
- 7 votes
#15 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:45 PM ESTCee, I hope you're right. When they say they want to take their country back, I think that means they want to either drive a significant portion of the population out of the country or make sure that those people stay in their place and don't vote.
- 3 votes
No trex,
it means they want to see people working again, and being able to buy homes and achieve their dreams. Where some kids go to college and others find well-paid, satisfying work after high school.
It means they want to see safe neighborhoods, where kids can play out-of-doors without worrying about being shot during a drug turf war. It means that the racism that some liberals want to preserve as a red-herring issue, becomes a thing of the past.
- 1 vote
Littleboyblue
Worked Gangs and Narcotics in those neighborhoods for years. You are right, except none of the drugs sold there are produced there. Destroy the source solve the problem. Racism is so insidious. and by the way most of the people I arrested buying drugs did not live in the hood. See where I'm going with this.
- 10 votes
Newt should known that the food stamps money all end up in the pocket of rich people.
- 1 vote
#16 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:42 PM ESTNewt should known that the food stamps money all end up in the pocket of rich people.
That's because for the most part, poor people don't own grocery stores....they don't hire folks either.
Regards,
Mike
- 1 vote
Mike
They don't even have grocery stores. We have food deserts in poor neighborhoods. I am amazed at the people who "think" they know poor communities and have no clue as to how they live. NONE, but they speak as experts. Driving through the hood, hearsay, and knowing A minority does not count as being an expert. pathetic. And yes we have business and we hire people. Any Black men visit your barber? just one example of commerce in the black community. get a clue sir.
- 8 votes
ww - what does your rant have to do with spending food stamps in grocery stores putting money in the pocket of rich people?
A flaming cross in the back ground would have completed the message.
OMG,, what a sad display of want to be POTUS.
- 10 votes
#17 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:51 PM ESTIsn't it racist to assume only blacks, hispanics... are the ones getting the food stamps? I'm sure there are poor white people getting food stamps too.
- 4 votes
I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps."
Evidently Newt thinks its only a problem for African Americans to receive food stamps. He actually believes blacks are "satisfied with food stamps". Sounds pretty racist to me.
- 8 votes
"Evidently Newt thinks its only a problem for African Americans to receive food stamps. He actually believes blacks are "satisfied with food stamps". Sounds pretty racist to me"
When the percentage of the black community that recieves assistance is greater than the percentage of the white community that recieve those same benefits there is a problem that needs to be discussed. Not talking about it will not make it go away. If you look real hard for racism and read more into what is said than is really there, oddly enough you'll probably find racism.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1077/is_n2_v48/ai_12970819/
No, if racism slaps you in the face, you don't have to go look for it.
Unemployment for African Americans is almost always twice that of whites. A much higher percentage of African Americans live in poverty. Do you believe it's because blacks are just lazy and have no work ethic? Or do you think that discrimination plays a big role in that? Why isn't Gingrich addressing the discrimination issue? Why is he acting like it's the fault of African Americans, but he doesn't address the problem where it concerns whites or Hispanics? Racism? You betcha.
- 6 votes
Minorities are at the bottom as a result of centuries of racism, abuse and oppression.
- 2 votes
funny
the employment rate for blacks was equal to whites as late as the 50's and was actually less in the 20's.
but all of a sudden now....150 years after slavery is abolished....racism is worse than when they were first freed???
hmmmmmm
or is something else at work here?? maybe some things that have been enacted inthe 50' s and 60's that accomplished more than the KKK could ever do??
I think people need to step back and actually look at this with reason and logic......unemployment for blacks largely has been equal to whites for the first 100 years after slavery was abolished.....marriage rates were also equal during that same time period.
then all of a sudden...in the early 60's the marriage rate and crime rate of blacks increased....along with unemployment rates.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I really dont think racism had to do with it...sorry people...there were racists in this country prior to 1960.....and my guess there were A LOT more racists in the years right after slavery was abolished.
but the media and elite want us to believe it is RACISM......lol
fear......give in to fear...and you give up rights for security...they have been playing this game against us for 100 years......they have figured out that is all it takes to grab power.
goodness people....wake up.
- 3 votes
the employment rate for blacks was equal to whites as late as the 50's and was actually less in the 20's.
First, it would be nice to see a link for that. Maybe there are reasons for those statistics. Maybe there was no laws saying that blacks and whites had to be paid the same. What was the criteria for being considered "unemployed"? Without knowing the methodology that was used to come up with that information, there is no way to tell if it has any validity.
- 7 votes
Black Unemployment Twice The Rate Of Whites For Past 60 Years
- 6 votes
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700175083/Minimum-wage-laws-have-raised-unemployment-rate-for-blacks.html
your link still proves my point...but check out mine.
racism was at its worst in the 1800's...yet marriage and unemployement were the same for the most part.
what happened in the middle of the 20th century happened that not even the institution of slavery could do....that is destroy the black family???
think man...racism didnt destroy the black family.
- 3 votes
The poverty rate for blacks went from 55 percent in the fifties to 25 percent now. On page 65.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf
It looks like blacks were way worse off in the fifties.
- 2 votes
That article doesn't link any actual data.
In the mid twentieth century, blacks started expecting to get treated as equals. That might not have anything to do with families, but it probably has everything to do with unemployment.
- 5 votes
he links the data in his book.
and what you also failed to mention was that the white poverty rate also decreased by the same percentage.
lets get back to what I said now that you are going away from it.
unemployment for blacks has gotten worse over the last 60 years..as well as the destruction of the black family.
wonder why???
Maybe it's partly due to blacks expecting to be paid the same and receive the same benefits as their white counterpoints. What is you're theory?
I'm pretty sure divorce rates rose for whites as well.
- 4 votes
The bottom line is: Everybody is better off now. I see that republicans are angry because everybody is better off now.
- 2 votes
I am still waiting for the explanation as to why unemployment used to be near equal and now it is not...and also why marriage rates used to be equal and now it is not.
just curious...I know its not racism caused.......any thoughts???
- 1 vote
Marshall, the degeneration of the black family started during slavery. Families were broken up, and either the mother or father, or both were sold to the highest bidder. If the children weren't auctioned off then they remained with the mother which was the advent of the matriarchal society, where the mothers, grandmothers, etc. held the power and kept the family together. It seems like it was in the far past, but my great grandfather was still living when I was small, and his family had a slave plantation.
There were virtually no intact families to model. As society became more liberal, and no father in the home, the females became more sexually active and had children out of marriage. They remained within the family system, and the males weren't raised to have parenting skills, or a view that they had to marry or stay in a marriage. This is one of the reasons I so admire, President Obama and his family. Their love, the relationship they have with their daughters is a wonderful role model for all of us (certainly not Gingrich) but particularly to the black community.
The change that was alluded to in the 60's was not the breakdown of society, but rather the end of segregation. I, as a white, grew up in segregation, and if you've never experienced it, you can never appreciate the ugliness of it.
When you grow up in a world that tells you that you're too dirty to drink from our water fountains or eat in our restaurants....use a different bathroom because we don't want ours sullied by yours.....as a man, "you best step off the side walk when I'm walking along, because your place is in the gutter, etc
In the 50's You come only through my backdoor if you're going to work in my house, and heaven forbid you sit in my presence. You may be in your 40's but you better refer to my 1 year old son as "master John" You may find this ludicrous, but it was the reality.
My great grandmother who was one of the kindest women I know, who would never be rude to anyone, nor make a disparaging remark purposefully, said to me,when I was a child and fully believing it "Honey, I can't call the little boy down,who's stealing my apples because he can't help himself, blacks are thieves." She didn't say it in a nasty way, because for her, it was as much her reality as the sky was blue.
I had a friend who was a college graduate from, of course, a black college, since she couldn't enter one open to others. She went further South to visit her family, stopped at a gas station to use the restroom and was told "go out in the field, ni— — — r."
In 1964 I was walking with a missionary from Biafa as I was doing community development.
A car load of men stopped, got out, spit at us and hurled epithets.
It's easy to look at statistics, and say that the break down of the black family was due to the influx of social programs, but the contributing factors are far more complex.
- 4 votes
you completely ignored the fact that marriage rates were equal from the time after the civil war and the abolishment of slavery until the 50's......then.....it declined rapidly....with the whites following close behind.....but to a lesser extent.
something happened...and it wasnt racism.
hey I know racism existed legally...I get it.....but it was really nothing new....something happened......something caused a sudden change in the family and employment rates.
hmmmmmmmmmmmm
and everyone has experienced racism....not institutionalized....but everyone has...I have an understanding of how horrible it was.....disgusting isnt a good enough word.
- 3 votes
I am still waiting for the explanation as to why unemployment used to be near equal and now it is not...and also why marriage rates used to be equal and now it is not.
As far as unemployment goes, I couldn't find any reliable statistics before 1948. I told you my theory. I'd like to hear yours.
- 5 votes
he explains it better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OIBOSJTwg&list=FLIZZqwWm6tVQBvZkYjSWrjg&index=5&feature=plpp_video
- 1 vote
@ marshall james #18.17...
unless you've experienced institutionized or covert racism which can have a truly negative impact on your lifestyle, you haven't a real "understanding" of how it works.
if your race is not, as a whole, perceived as lazy, the majority being of the criminal element such as murderers and drug abusers, etc, you haven't a real "understanding".
if your race's contributions that become popular to culture (no matter how intellectually insignificant) are not continously stripped away and attributed to another race ie: rock & roll, jazz, hip hop, even big butts and now football (the mediocre player 'tebow') you can't have a real "understanding".
if your race is considered the worst at everything ( the first black president, now, gets the destinction of the worst president) and the best at nothing, you couldn't have a real "understanding".
it's dire that president obama be smeared with the title of the "worst president ever" to continue to propagate the fallacy that the white race is truly the superior one and president obama's win has proven to be a terribly bad experiment.
the president is labelled by the gop as the "food stamp president", that his ideas are spawned from the ideals of his kenya father (who he saw once when he was 10 years old). one minute they're claiming he "hates white people" the next claiming he's done nothing for african americans.
it's of radical importance that entitlements be given an african american face because, after all, they are famously known as the shiftless, lazy, do nothings (except commit crimes) race in america. the gop does everything to perpetuate this image. anyone who can't see this is in mad denial.
- 3 votes
irene
with all due respect...you do not have to get to a certain level of racism to make racism relevent....it is relevent on all levels.
I am offended that you disregard the assaults and theft that I endured as a youth...the vandalizing of my home.......all because of my race and the neighborhood I grew up in.
i find your stance on this offensive..
here is the defintion of racism...just to let you know....there are not a bunch of hoops you need to go through to make the defintion relevent or not.
NOUN
1.
animosity toward other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races
2.
belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior
- 1 vote
@ marshall james #18.21...
before addressing your experience with racism i have a theory for what may have caused the increase in black unemployment.
one of the biggest downsides to intergration was the downfall of a huge number of african american businesses. during segregation african americans owned their own companies, merchandising businesses and financial institutions of all sorts. employment for blacks flourished.
when african american assimulated into the white work force the majority of these businesses went by the wayside. black workers were forced to compete with whites for jobs which would have left multitudes unemployed. hence, the passing of the equal opportunity bill.
it's now very difficult now for african american merchants to prosper in great numbers because they are unable to fight the competition of white merchants selling black products who are able to siphon off black customers.
- 1 vote
your theory holds no water.
white unemployment went up also...if we took your theory....it would of gone down.
sorry....not happening.
besides ....you are saying its harder for blacks to get merchandise?? really?? worse than after the civil war and the decades directly after???
lol.
- 1 vote
No business is going to hire more people just because they're cheaper. If my employer cut wages by 50%, he wouldn't hire more people--he'd just make more money.
- 2 votes
trm
history would prove you wrong.
when minimum wage was instituted....almost all cut back on staff.
- 2 votes
Common sense would tell you that employers don't just hire warm bodies out of the kindness of their hearts.
- 6 votes
trm - but aren't they supposed to keep them on, once they're hired, out of the kindness of their hearts, no matter how good or bad business may get?
- 1 vote
but aren't they supposed to keep them on, once they're hired, out of the kindness of their hearts, no matter how good or bad business may get?
I don't really understand what you mean by that. No business man worth their salt hires or retains workers they don't need.
http://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/04/why-has-higher-minimum-wage-increased.html
- 3 votes
trm - but aren't they supposed to keep them on, once they're hired, out of the kindness of their hearts, no matter how good or bad business may get?
I don't recall anyone ever saying that, ever! That is a knee jerk comment with absolutely no basis in reality! It is the kind of comment that divides this nations people and plays directly into the hands of politicians whose sole agenda is to serve themselves!
Minimum wage is NOT the problem! The problem is the lack of a universal requirement for all people to receive a minimum "living" wage world wide! While the US cannot tell another country they must implement a living wage for their people we CAN implement a trade program that denies access to American markets if they don't!
- 2 votes
Companies here that are competing against exporters from other countries and US companies that export or that are planning to export to other countries would be able to hire a lot more lower paid workers and expand their market share in the world export markets and create a huge trade surplus for the US.
Huge trade surpluses would stimulate the overall economy and create more jobs in other sectors.
It also makes it less attractive for US corporations to outsource labor and production if it means they must pay a living wage where ever they go in order to sell in the US market place! The same standards could also be applied to environmental standards of production as well.
- 1 vote
trm,
You are right, of course. My comment was meant sarcastically. Unfortunately, there are too many people that fail to understand that companies must make business decisions that are based on the marketplace, not on "feelings". As such, we will continue to see exporting of jobs overseas and minimum wage jobs here unless something happens to affect the trade laws. No company is going to pay more money to employees than it can recover when it sells its products. If products from other countries force the price lower here, then companies must respond or lose market share.
Renee,
While your basic concept has some merit, it still does little to change things. That's because a living wage in some countries may be $1.00 a day. Someone earning that much might be better off than someone making $15.00/hr in the U.S.
While I agree with your assumption that a living wage in the US is much different than a living wage in other nations your example of a dollar a day is greatly exaggerated! I challenge you to find a place where you can find someone living on $1/day who has the same standard of living as someone making $15/hr in the US (by the way $15/hr here in the US is hardly living high on the hog in most areas).
When you define a living wage it would account for a certain standard of living. Meaning they would be able to buy food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, etc. at a standard considered to be equivalent to their counterpart in other countries.
- 1 vote
ROFL - I actually considered putting a disclaimer on the $1 a day figure to indicate that it was not accurate but was just intended to make a point.
As I said, the concept has merit, but the implementation would be incredibly difficult at best and impossible at worst. I honestly have to wonder if you could ever achieve something like that without a world-wide currency and government. The fluctuations in currency values and the differences in governments (including dictatorships, monarchys, etc.) have a lot to do with standard of living and wages.
If you read what I said you would realize I didn't indicate that we can change what other countries laws are. But we can place trade restrictions on those countries we do it everyday with requiring safety standards there is no reason we could not do it with living wage restrictions and environmental production restrictions.
Simple, if you do not pay a living wage and you do not produce your product by following safe environmental practices your goods are not welcome here! Would the American people have to make some sacrifices? Yes! But in the long run would it be better to see jobs returning tho the US or cheap prices? Keep in mind if your more concerned with everything being cheap, then you may not have a job to buy anything cheap or otherwise!
You are forgetting that the US is the largest consumer nation in the world, most of the worlds economies aspire to market here in the US because we are a consumer nation much more so than many other countries. Seems to me that it would be a good idea to press that rather notable advantage while we still have it!
The real world (the market) does not care about any ""living wage"". People have to survive and they have to do whatever they have to do to survive.
If there is competition out there and they have to lower their wages to compete and survive, that is what they will do.
You cannot tell or force other countries to do anything. You have to negotiate with them and reach an agreement.
Wages in the US will continue to feel downward pressure as long as there are millions of people in other countries making low wages. Outsourcing will continue.
At this point there is additional downward pressure caused by the millions of US workers that are unemployed.
Wages will continue going down.
The real world (the market) does not care about any ""living wage"".
Yes the real world would care about living wages if they were not allowed to trade here unless they paid them! No as long as we allow those goods and services to enter the country with no restrictions they won't care.
You cannot tell or force other countries to do anything. You have to negotiate with them and reach an agreement.
We already tell them they cannot sell children's toys which contain lead, small parts or are otherwise unsafe, we already tell them they cannot sell cars here which do not meet our emissions standards, safety standards, etc. There are whole hosts of regulations products and services must meet in order to be sold on the American market. So no we don't have to negotiate and no we are not forcing anybody to do anything unless they wish to market their products and services to the US. Don't want to sell here, then I guess it is just business as usual.
@ alex #18.37...
so if renee's solution is not instituted, it sounds as though the only way to coax corporations into bringing jobs back to the u s and stop the outsourcing is for americans to accept wages and benefits (if any) comparable to those overseas.
this will assure that the title of the "food stamp president" with which republicans love to falsely anoit president obama, will be passed on to all future presidents indefinitely.
@ renee...
standing ovation!!!
@ marshall james #18.23...
my theory may not hold a lot of water but i'm sure it holds some. you said yourself in #18.5 that african american unemployment began to inflate in the 60's. this would correspond with a number of african americans (the cream of the crop...i'm sure) exiting black businesses and moving into white corporations. this had an adverse affect on black companies and institutions.
in the 60's, as huge numbers of black businesses were forced to shutdown and those left behind may have been pushed onto the rolls of the unemployed.
i'm confused about your conclusion in #18.5 that white companies hiring african american workers would have caused white unemployment to go down.
by the way, yes it is harder for black businessmen to obtain merchandise at a cost equal to that of white better financed businessmen.
- 2 votes
@ marshall james #18.21...
to respond to your comment regarding the relevancy of racism. all racism is deplorable but racism aggressively exercised by those in power has a tremendously negative affect on the lives with whom it is directed. it's even worse when it's insidious and covert as it is presently.
the bigotry that you were exposed to was wholly despicable; but did it have a lasting and demeaning impact on your self esteem as a white man or your race as a whole?
if your offenders were african americans it may have sadly left you with a negative impression of all african americans as with the attitudes that some blacks have of whites.
your definitions of racism:
1.
animosity toward other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races
2.
belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior
definition # 1 describes the bigotry of many minorities which is spawned from what is perceived as abuse by the ruling class (which in so many cases has been/is true). this should not be a condemnation of all whites.
definition # 2 is the racism that is used by those in power in order to perserve their lofty positions.
- 1 vote
I do not see any presidential candidate promising to tell the rest of the world to take a hike. The posters here that want to follow that path would have to run for president to achieve their objectives.
There is a reason why those candidates do not think that telling the rest of the world to take a hike is a good idea.
- 1 vote
There is a reason why those candidates do not think that telling the rest of the world to take a hike is a good idea.
Nobody is telling the world to take a hike! That is twist and spin! What the US would be telling the rest of the world is our people are taking a stand for themselves and for the rest of the people in the world. We believe in a future for all people not just the wealthiest 0.1%! That in order to do so we will make sacrifices so that their people can enjoy the fruits of their labor as the American people have been able to do in the past! That we care that the environment is one we will be proud to pass on to future generations and we will not allow corporations and the greed of the 0.1% to destroy that world for the 99.9%!
- 3 votes
as i'm holding my head while watching fox (news?) business correspondent brenda buttner and bret baeir are shockingly conceding the truth about why manufacturing jobs will never return to the u s (fox and the truth are always shocking).
of course many of us pretty much suspected this was the case. we weren't fooled for a minute by the gop propaganda that if tax rates are simply lowered, jobs will come flooding back.
they were discussing a harvard survey that reveals higher wages and "onerous" pension benefits (bret called them) demanded by unions keeps corporations from returning. and of course they threw in the high tax rate as usual for continued overseas outsourcing.
so it looks as though unless we demand corporations pay living wages to those workers overseas to somewhat mirror ours, the american wages will definitely begin to mirror theirs.
- 2 votes
It looks like this move did not get him any new votes, No one is interested, it seems.
President Obama promotes reorganizing government to make it leaner, more efficient and insourcing to bring jobs back to the U.S. from overseas (Video)
http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/14/10156329-president-obama-promotes-reorganizing-government-to-make-it-leaner-more-efficient-and-insourcing-to-bring-jobs-back-to-the-us-from-overseas-video
- 1 vote
the question is why not? maybe because the public is so distracted by this clownish sideshow by the gop to shake out the dirt on the republican presidential candidate ahead of the dems.
there's been little or no focus on obama's message except for the twisted interpetation spewed by the republicans. it's all about attacking president obama and diluting attacks from the democrats in the future election.
as the republicans try and claim any recycled assaults on their candidate is old news and irrelevant, just remember how they continously pounded/pound the rev wright, birth certificate etc until our ears bled.
- 2 votes
Isn't it racist to assume only blacks, hispanics... are the ones getting the food stamps? I'm sure there are poor white people getting food stamps too.
You are partially correct. The primary recipients of food stamps are whites, however he tied it in with the extra high unemployment rates among blacks.
- 10 votes
#19 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:05 PM ESTI think you are looking for a reason to cry racism. It looks to be the only argument liberals can find when faced with the truth. We will never be able to have a honest conversation about race until when democrats cry racism at every turn.
No need to look for a reason when it is so blatant.
I find it amazing that people are actually trying to defend Gingrich.
- 12 votes
At this point , the food stamps are not the main problem. The main problem is unemployment and lack of jobs. Once you get the unemployment rate down, the number of people on food stamps will automatically go down too.
Jobs have no color. Just concentrate in creating jobs. There is no reason to bring race into the picture. The only reason for bringing up race in front of a white audience is racism.
- 4 votes
"I find it amazing that people are actually trying to defend Gingrich"
I find it amazing people are accusing him of racism when he's only telling the truth. At some point people need to look at the raw information and start to find a way to fix the problem rather than just saying poor you let me give you something and being an enabler.
Alex,
I agree fixing the jobs problem will fix some of the problem. There will still be a disproportionately higher number of minorities that will be on food stamps because their unemployment numbers are higher as a percentage of the population than white unemployment. We need to find a way to fix that problem and crying racist when someone talks openly about the problem isn't going to fix it.
Sorry, there is no excuse for the dog whistle politics Gingrich is practicing, but if you want to make excuses for him--knock yourself out.
- 11 votes
I find it amazing people are accusing him of racism when he's only telling the truth.
Gingrich is NOT telling the truth.
When he speak of food stamps, why is he directing the discussion toward Black Americans when 60% of the food stamps are distributed to White Americans?
Why not direct the discussion toward White Americans who do not work and use most of the food stamps?
- 7 votes
Why not direct the discussion toward White Americans who do not work and use most of the food stamps?
That wouldn't sit well with his base, now would it?
- 8 votes
Starting 2000 to 2008 and now for all to see! Today in 2012
There is the new sub human for the money masters.
The American Middle Class,,, All of U.S !!!!!!!!!
- 7 votes
#20 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:07 PM ESTWe will be fighting back. Perry's comment about Turkey couldn't be farther from the truth.
Ever time these stupid republicans get any air time, they get the US deeper in the @!$%#.
The lying is so blatant and the cheering is un American. These traitors can never be allowed
to run this country until they get some psychiatric help. They are nuts!
- 6 votes
Perry is alienating one of the most influential countries in the middle east.
- 3 votes
You Liberals rail about racism every chance you can unless:
1) Obama's pastor is involved.
2) Jessie Jackson is speaking.
3) Al Sharpton has the microphone
4) Hilary Clinton puts on a black accent
5) A white person is hurt by Affirmative Action
6) an ACORN rep is speaking
7) A Black Panther member holding a baton is blocking a polling establishment.
8) The first lady states she is "finally proud of America"
9) A LA Times writer calls Obama "Barak The Magic Negro"(...to which you MUST wait until Rush Limbaugh satirizes it and THEN call Rush a racist.)
10) Bill Maher uses the N**** word
11) A white person is the victim
- 1 vote
#21 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:36 PM ESTPoor, poor white people. I know a racist when I see or hear one. I will never put up with
someones racist bull@!$%#. If someone doesn't like Obama then vote against him. In the
meantime, endure what the United States 2008 presidential election results brought. The
sad thing is people's racist attitudes could result in one of the GOP candidates winning.
That would not be good in any way for America. We tried it and didn't like it. If the GOP
wanted to "take their country back", then they should have put forth someone with some
integrity. The GOP candidates span a wide range of crazy ideas that will not maintain the
America we have so far enjoyed. We liberals are going to keep our country run by the sane
people. When the GOP gets some better ideas, then maybe you can have a shot at it some
time in the distant future.
- 11 votes
We liberals are going to keep our country run by the sane
people.
yes...until debt & the dollar collapse do us part.
Don't care for the GOP either....but there is a Constitutional alternative my friend.
OMG!!
Talk about being out of touch
Please get off the GOP 101 play book talking points!
Jezzzzz!
- 11 votes
#22 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:17 PM ESTI PITY the FOOLS! GOP should really be ashamed of those CLOWNS!
- 7 votes
#23 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:46 PM ESTLinda
All of America should be ashamed of those clowns, and fearful of the @!$%# storm they are attempting to create. It won't be pretty. Iraq was supposed to be a cakewalk. How soon they forget. Euro-centric hubris kills.
- 6 votes
I hesitate to actually agree with Perry on something, but I didn't find that a "weird and inappropriate pivot."
Comparing the behavior of two sides in a conflict is useful for understanding context. The behavior of the scout sniper team in the video does appear to be illegal; it will be punished. But in the continuum of wrongness, it's an anomaly that pales in comparison to those acts that our adversaries not only routinely commit, but celebrate.
#24 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:40 AM ESTThe stereotypes were a flyin last night. A coherent position was nowhere to be heard.
- 6 votes
#25 - Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:03 AM ESTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
