Audio: Race-mongering Rep. Diane Watson channels Ray Nagin
Tipster JP passes along audio from a Black History Town Hall meeting last night held by Congressional Black Caucus leaders at Howard University in Washington, D.C.
California Democrat Rep. Diane Watson, in discussing D.C. representation, channeled New Orleans Mayor Ray “Chocolate City” Nagin. Partial transcript:
Did you know your representatives can not vote? They can only vote in the committee as a whole. So what you’re going to have to do is declare the District [of Columbia] something like a state so they can have a proportional representation who vote. But that would give this district two senators and there are a lot of people on that floor who don’t want to see that occur because if there’s a chocolate city, this is it.
Here’s the audio:
In other words: The White Men and Women in the US Senate are blocking proportional representation for D.C. to keep black–”chocolate”–people out.
She really believes this poison. And she sat there at Howard University spreading it to black college students.
Commenter greenfairie: “D.C. has been called Chocolate City for years because of its large black population. But the usual agitators use race as the reason why D.C. doesn’t have statehood.” Yep.
I remind you that Rep. Watson is the same racial demagogue who attacked Ward Connerly for marrying outside his race:
“He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black. I said that.”
Watson is supporting Hillary Clinton, but I have a feeling she’d get along swimmingly with Michelle Obama.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Neocon News » Evil mystery persons (probably Republican) don’t want to see black people in the Senate
- The City Square
- Race-baiting moonbat Congresswoman pulls a Ray Nagin « Crush Liberalism
- Michelle Malkin » Spike Lee on Obama: There’s “gonna be a real Chocolate City!”
self-edit: imploy = imply.
Box:
Do you mean the one saluting or the one with the drumsticks? Either would apply.
Still haven’t gotten an answer to this have ya?
Set aside all the arguments about race or which party is more at fault, and (as Rusty said) ask yourself a very simple question:
Is there any good reason why 550,000 American citizens should not have representation in Congress?
The only real argument I have seen in this thread is that the Constitution does not allow it. Well, plenty of constitutional law scholars would disagree with this and note that DC has been treated as a “state” for constitutional law purposes many many many times in the past. But okay, I’ll grant you the argument that, as written, it is unconstitutional for DC to have a rep.
That said, I would assume that all of you would wholeheartedly back such an amendment and would encourage your representatives and state legislatures to pass the measure?
Who will sign on right now?
Rusty:
How so? Where is your evidence? Something is very, very lacking in your history if you think that Republicans are keeping you down. The historian in me sees you for the ignorant American who trumpets “what’s owed me” when it’s not even a fact. A baseless opinion on your part. Either dig up the evidence or again this statement is shameless conjecture on your part. You know, the type that Ms. Watson used and which you’re responding to.
I will sign today on one condition:
That I can be guaranteed that not a single illegal alien will have the “right” to vote and can be kept from voting. Okay, that is two.
As far as I can tell, I have absolutely no representation in federal or state government. I never miss an election here in California but so far I’ve been unable to make a shred of difference because everybody who is elected is prone to steal a major portion of my income (40% to fed and state!)
I’m not a fan of McCain but did I have a choice in the primaries? Nope
It is lonely being conservative even in Orange County.
I think you would fit in nicely here in California, Rusty
Congress did pass a Constitutional amendment, if you remember, back in 1977. It wasn’t ratified. You have to convince the rest of the country too.
Graysonret, if you notice the 16 states that ratified that amendment, all are traditionally liberal or were heavily Democratic at the time.
And I blame Republicans because the Democrats had their shot and passed an amendment that wasn’t ratified. Republicans decided 550,000 disenfranchised people was worth it if the disenfranchises were going to vote Democrat. They could have gone a long way into convincing states that a principled stand was the way to go. Instead their sin of omission is one of their great moral failures.
Rusty, just move and shut up about it already. # 104, emjem24, isn’t it funny how he never has any back up. He can’t back it up and he knows it.
Rusty - I clicked on your name and noticed your blog is why.i.hate.dc. Life is short - maybe it’s time to move. Seriously. And don’t say anything about the commute or your job. Get a new job, take the metro. There are solutions. Honestly. My first job out of college was 100 miles round trip. A day. It can be done. There are always options in life. You’re just choosing not to take them.
Yes, Rusty. Isn’t that the beauty of the system? No one group can decide for everyone. 3/4 must agree. That’s what makes the system work and keeps it going today. It does negate “moral hysteria” that the Founders were so worried about. You have to convince most people that what you propose is good for the country. Apparently, at the time, it wasn’t. Passing some Congressional law won’t work, as the democrats want. It isn’t the people in D.C., that politicians are concerned with; it’s how much power can I have as being a politician in D.C.? Perhaps a voting representative would be fine. 2 senators…no. A slap in the face of the states. You bet, if I was a politician in D.C., I’d love being a senator, representing a nice, loyal small group of people. I’d have a lot of power, compared to the number of people I represent.
With a bit of an easement, couldn’t we make DC part of San Francisco? All 550,000 would be represented in Congress, without changing any balance of power…
Rusty-
I saw on your website the YouTube posting of the type of commercials that they show on TV in D.C. - I would have to say that this is exactly why the people of D.C. should not be given a vote. WOW!
Good Lord, Alohaguy, that’s all I need… San Francisco right up the street from me. The next day, Allied Moving would be over and I’d be long gone…I mean, far away!
DC has more people than Wymoing. So, if you want to take away Wyoming’s representative and senators, I guess that would even things out.
Good for the country. Bad for Republicans.
Ok. That still doesn’t solve anything for the 549,999 or so people still living in the city. It’s not like everyone can just up and move. And since blacks are likely to be considerably poorer, they are hurt the most.
People, this isn’t about me. It’s about the entire city of people who are sent to war and pay federal taxes without any say in those decisions.
And it sickens me that people care more about the voting rights of Iraqis than they do of Washingtonians. Maybe we should clean out the skeletons in our own closet before claiming the moral high ground.
BTW Rusty:
I see you’re donning your History cap again. Too bad your history knowledge is limited to “labels.” Me oh my, you wouldn’t know what a label is, would you?
1. Southern Democrat = Dixicrat = those who thought segregation was just so much fun.
2. You are forgetting that that political parties were formed much earlier (in the early 19th century) where there were two factions: Federalists and Republicans (which became the Democratic-Republicans).
3. The Federalist Party (the early precursor to the Republican Party) fell apart and became the Whig Party after 1812. The Whig Party eventually disappeared and became what is the Republican Party around 1860.
4. Around the time post WWII, Republicans began to attract the support of southern Democrats who didn’t like the New Deal and Great Society.
5. Your assertion that “liberals were Republicans” until the later 1/2 of the 20th century” doesn’t jive with the annals of history and the development of American political parties.
You are talking about the Bourbon democrats of the later 19th century. Even in the 20th century, Dems (liberals/progressives) were seen as supporting big government programs whereas Conservatives (on both sides) did not. If anything, both parties are becoming a lot more alike than different.
6. Might I add that within both politial parties are factions of viewpoint- we’ll call them, liberal, moderate, and conservative. They exist within both parties.
7. Your knowledge of history is sorely lacking. Please research before you assert something patently uninformed. Political parties evolve but not in the way you have stated. This wiki link should initially help.
#106 On February 26th, 2008 at 4:47 pm, Ditkaca said:
“As far as I can tell, I have absolutely no representation in federal or state government. I never miss an election here in California but so far I’ve been unable to make a shred of difference because everybody who is elected is prone to steal a major portion of my income (40% to fed and state!)
I’m not a fan of McCain but did I have a choice in the primaries? Nope”
I’m starting to feel that way, too.
I’ve been thinking for some time that we need an “ur-debate” in this country:
about what exactly is the role of governement;
about what we are each entitled to;
about what responsibility(ies) each of has;
about what rights (as opposed to privileges and desiderata) we each have;
about whether we uphold the Constitution as written, or rather do we uphold it the way we *sigh* wish it were written;
just for starters.
For example, should we all be responsible for ourselves and our own first, and then help out everyone else to the best of our abilities?
Or, is one, with the power of the State (in essence, the gun) behind him to get him what he wants, entitled to just as much of everything that anyone else might have?
Are we taxpayers allowed to go about our daily business; do we have whatever measure of “domestic tranquility” (as the Constitution says) we have; only because we allow the State to tax (virtually confiscate) us so heavily, and to redistribute our income to tax recipients?
Would the tax (entitlement) recipients otherwise attack the taxpayers?
If so, how different is this from extortion; how different is this from a protection racket?
My day job keeps me from writing a serious treatment about this; but, I firmly believe we are dancing around the issue when we fiddle with the IRS tax code, when we adjust tax rates by whatever percent.
It might just be time for a national “Ur-debate” about this basic “Ur-question.”
Terrig:
I quite agree with you. I wish I could be as “disenfranchised” as Rusty. I would be quite the hit at Democrat cocktail parties… or the social/welfare system of the US.
Emjem, I am aware of the history of the parties. I took quite a few American history courses at school (including American Political Parties (GOVT-3xx). I was generalizing because this is merely a comment thread (although I’m shocked people here are so anti-democracy).
I was saying that the Dixiecrats (who were listed as Dems on the ballot) started switching over in the latter half of the 20th century. The real change started much earlier when progressives in WI and MN started aligning with Democrats to push the powerful Midwestern Republican political machines out of office.
Do you really think that is why the amendment didn’t pass? Because people thought that disenfranchisement is good for the country? Let’s not be naive.
What makes you think that geographic proximity to the Capitol would give a representative disproportionate power?
I am sure that the Senators of Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota and Vermont agree. I don’t think anyone is proposing we get rid of them.
The only way you could form a state within the District, is separate the Federal Triangle from the “new state”. Residing the Federal government within a state boundary would be a disaster. The state could effectively rule the land. You would have a tenant-landlord situation. Not good, at all. One of the reasons for Article 1, section 8.
The only way this can be done, is by Constitutional amendment. Go for it!!
#121 On February 26th, 2008 at 5:27 pm, graysonret said:
“The only way you could form a state within the District, is separate the Federal Triangle from the “new state”. Residing the Federal government within a state boundary would be a disaster. The state could effectively rule the land. You would have a tenant-landlord situation. Not good, at all. One of the reasons for Article 1, section 8.”
graysonret:
As I remember, that’s what I was taught in school as the reason for the nation’s capital being in its own “district”, as opposed to being in a single state, any state.
‘Course, I was taught that in grammar school back in the early-mid 60s, before the “educationists” had significantly ruined our public education system.
Federal buildings are everywhere, not just in DC. It does not seem to have posed a problem. And when and if conflict does arise between the state and fed, federal law trumps state anyway. Believe me, DC would not be able to bully the federal government into ANYTHING just because it owns some property there.
#122 On February 26th, 2008 at 5:28 pm, graysonret said:
“The only way this can be done, is by Constitutional amendment. Go for it!!”
Agreed - like I’ve been saying, graysonret.
Nope, National government doesn’t trump state law…not on state land, my friend. If so, what’s the purpose of states, these days? National government rules and overrides everything? Dear me, please read your Constitutional history and court decisions over the past 200 years. I can just see this state trying to enforce its legal right to its own land, constantly being overriden by the courts and Congress which deems it inconvenient. Heck of a battle for sure…and a big change to state/federal relationships.
Love to continue this discussion, gentlemen, and I enjoyed it a lot, but got to get home and dinner. ’til next time….
#127 graysonret:
Good idea.
Gotta follow you out the door.
The boss is waiting at home.
Sorry, Rusty. I wasn’t alive then and I’m not Shirley MacLaine.
For what do you think the Constitution is a great starting point? A starting point for replacing the text with personal preferences? We know the Constitution is not divine. Divine is dead, but the Constitution isn’t.
You didn’t frame the issue properly. You could ask why 550,000 people choose to disenfranchise themselves. The answers may enlighten you.
Federal preemption when it comes to property it owns is pretty well settled, I’d say, seeing as its right in the constitution.
So what is your concern?
Ok, I have one little acre in the middle of Indiana. I own a house here, and a little minivan.
I’m white.
My little one acre place isn’t a state; it doesn’t have a representative, or two senators.
But I want to be a state.
I want all the perks that go with statehood.
But I can’t become a state.
I’m being denied my rights!
The Man is keeping me down!
Where is Rusty with regards to my rights?
I’d check the Halo first.
The issue of D.C. voter disenfranchisement appears to be related to the misapplication of article I, section 8 of the Constitution that created the Federal District. The territory was ceded by Maryland and Virginia for the purpose of creating a region for the federal government’s sole use and subject to the fed’s laws no different than any military base or national park in any other state. The territory of D.C. that came from Virginia was eventually retroceded back to the state, so clearly the size of D.C. isn’t written in stone, only that is would not exceed a 10-mile square.
Creating a D.C. state is obviously a power grab by a handful of idiot Dems and is blocked by those Dems and Repubs who actually read the Constitution (it would be a clear violation of the intent of territory secession from Maryland and therefore a violation of Article IV, Section 3 which states that no state shall be created from an existing state without permission from congress and the state ceding the territory). It would be the same as declaring Camp Pendleton or Fort Bragg new states.
So how to treat the residents of D.C. is to treat them the same as government employees and civilians who reside on military bases (family members, civilian contractors, etc.). As I am not in the military, perhaps someone here could answer? Do you vote in the state elections where your base is located? For census purposes, are you treated as a resident of your base’s state? If so, then it would be both fair and constitutional to allow D.C. residents to take part in Maryland state elections.
GaijinBob,
Good links and explanations thats what I should have done thanks.
GaijinBob, sure, makes sense but then how can I play the race-baiting card?
Aren’t the parts of the Consitution that I want changed Bush’s fault?
#133 GaijinBob:
Thank you for that explanation.
Not sure about contractors or civilians, but for military personnel, your home state continues to be your “home of record”. You pay taxes to your home of record, not the state at which you are stationed. You continue to maintain residency in your home state and vote by absentee ballot in your home state if you are stationed in another state.
When you are discharged, the military moves you back to your home of record.
GaijinBob, you’re right about Article 1; however, there is a precedent that was set back in the 1860s. The state of West Virginia was set up out of Virginia, without its consent. No, you can’t use secession as a reason, since the Congress and Supreme Court ruled that the states hadn’t quit the Union and were still part of the U.S.. In fact, if Virginia sued to have West Virginia returned, they would have a pretty good case, under Constitutional law. But, I don’t think we Virginians would want it anyway.
Once a precedent is set, and accepted by SCOTUS, it would be hard to argue against it.
I know I’m coming late to this party, but I have a valid excuse.
The best solution is to retrocede most of DC back to Maryland. It would probably leave a really weird shape for the federal district, but that would be all right. Maybe it would distract Maryland from trying to act as though it were the federal government in some of its actions (like regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars).
The second best is to try the voting rights act again. There are problems with the relationship between the federal government and a state-like entity, as foreseen in the reasoning behind the creation of a federal district apart from any state when the Constitution was written, but there may be work-arounds that could be put in the amendment. [I, too, went through grade school in the '60s before the rot set in.] And I could support that.
And I view Rusty as more than entertainment on these pages–it helps to have to look at our opinions (even if they don’t change) in order to defend or explain them.
Kevin, I agree. Retrocession to Maryland is my first choice. Unfortunately, many people in the District have a lot of hometown pride and don’t want to join another state. The next step is the DC Voting Rights Act (which won’t pass for the reasons I’ve outlined…Republican legislatures aren’t just going to give DC two liberal senators) and then DC statehood.
Oh, please enlighten me. Is it because many of these people are poor and can’t go anywhere else? Is it because DC offers a ton of jobs and not everyone can afford to commute from the burbs? Those selfish self-disenfranchising bastards. Trying to make a life for themselves and trying to vote? How dare they!
And JHSII, with all due respect, cut it out. Your point, if you can even call it that, is not appreciated. You have voted for two senators and a rep. I envy you. Congrats. Don’t belittle those who are being denied their human rights.
I have a MA in History, so what is your point. As do most liberals do you believe yourself to be the smartest in the room. You’re not-I know enough to know I’m not either but you pretend to be all knowing. Move, if you’ve got money to live in Bethesda than you can go anywhere. Do as my parents did when they lived in DC in the late fifties when they first married, move to Alexandria if you want to vote and quit with the racist diatribe. The District has always been the District no matter what the racial make up is, as usual you turn to agreeing with those who call people racists because you can’t come up with a better argument than that. And everyday you liberals tell us all just how smart you are. But you’re always good for a laugh.
Rusty:
If you’re “aware” of American political party development, then I’m certainly not seeing it in your post. I do not agree with generalization as applied to history… without cited examples, any historical analysis cannot be supported. You took quite a few history courses? Unfortunately, they don’t seem to have rubbed off much on you. Being that I have a background in the subject and have taught it in the past, you will need to do better than this.
As to your “anti-democracy” assertion, I’m shocked that you don’t get that people see you as a sock puppet when you make baseless claims. I’m shocked that you don’t get the Constitution or why the federal district was set up in the first place. It’s interesting that like Ms. Watson, you hide behind poor black folk to make your point.
Now, Rusty, you’re being “general.” I’m sure you can name one good dixicrat, right? How do you explain Zell Miller of Georgia? Is your comment on the realignment of political parties in MN and WI a reflection of historical facts or your own biased opinion? Did progressives realign with the Dems to push out the Republican machine or perhaps because the Dems better matched their values?
Given that you have a few college history courses under your belt, it won’t pain you too much to back up your assertions, right? If you cannot do this, then why waste the blog space? Or do you desperately cling to your supposed “disenfranchisement” that you’d rather hang out under a bridge with the rest of the members of the Troll Liberation Front?
Terrig:
Good morning! Ah, a fellow history grad. I really can’t stand it when anybody thinks that just because they have a “few” courses in history automatically makes them an expert. It’s like saying that using TurboTax to do your taxes makes you an accountant. I have a BA in History and an MAT in Social Studies. I’ve been around a few classrooms but after my umpteenth military move and third teaching certificate, I felt that subbing to get my foot in the door to teach full-time wasn’t all that fascinating anymore. I’m still toying with either getting my MA in History or elementary teaching certification.
I think Rusty would rather be a victim instead of an empowered person. He’s staying to be near his friends and work. You can always find a new job, new friends… and a place to vote. I have a brother-in-law (another liberal- perhaps he and Rusty should talk?) who lives in Maryland and commutes to work in D.C. I’ve also heard of a great new invention called PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
Other people have made this argument but like many liberal Dems of different ethnic backgrounds they’d rather be helpless instead of proactive. I had a mother who grew up dirt poor but she didn’t stay that way. Through hard work and self-reliance she determined her own destiny not poverty… a little thing that Rusty and the black community that he “identifies” with should think about. I tell ya, Terrig, I grew up with libs in a college town, and many of them (professors especially) didn’t often mix with “townies.”
without cited examples, any historical analysis cannot be supported.
Through hard work and self-reliance she determined her own destiny not poverty… a little thing that Rusty and the black community that he “identifies” with should think about.
How do you explain Zell Miller of Georgia?
HI Emjem24, I’m glad to hear we have more in common than I thought. I haven’t worked at a school since my daughter’s birth but still keep up my teaching certificates in VA & GA. I did teach some college courses at the University of Hawaii and University of Phoenix when we lived on Oahu.
Have a great day, fellow military spouse.
I agree with you on Rusty, it’s easier to be a victim. You know he reminds me of these people on this cake central website I’m also on (my new hobby-cakes). This one girl was whinning about the economy and whether she should open a business but she continued with the “victim” card as well. It’s easier for them I guess.
I have a good friend from Terre Haute, IN, and she said the same thing about the college folks and the people from town. She worked at a shop in the mall and she said that when the profs came in, they would look around at the workers, and some of the other shoppers, turn their heads and make nasty little comments. But we all know they’re so much smarter than we, right?
Rusty:
So you’re staying to support the poor, “disenfranchised,” black community? This absolutely makes no sense. I am not indifferent to poor people just shockingly honest, unlike you. People are poor for a variety of reasons such as alcohol abuse, drug abuse, joblessness, laziness. I’ve seen this in my own family (some of whose members still are poor). I do not make excuses for poor people unlike you. I do not blame people’s lack of “opportunities” on institutional racism or poverty unlike you. Life in America is what you make of it and I think the only one truly naive about poverty is you.
As I’ve said before when you make excuses for people who are poor (they’re trapped because they’re victims of institutional poverty/racism) you usually use up most of those excuses in the end. I firmly feel that, yes, you can lift yourself out of poverty. How do I know this? My mother. Have you ever been poor? It is one thing to observe it but another thing to either a) grow up in it or b) be a byproduct of. This assertion on your part is racist and a bit ignorant.
Again, your liberal condescension shines through with this lame jab. This is patronizing on your part to suggest. Take a look at the segregated, black slums of Montgomery, Alabama or for that matter real rural poverty in places like Upstate New York. I’ve witnessed its devastation and after-affects in my own family. Can you say the same thing for your own? I’ve seen my own family members make excuses for why they’re poor… it gets old after a while.
Didn’t he later regret this action as well? How do you explain Robert “KKK” Byrd or is he a blip on your liberal radar? People change…as has Mr. Miller. If you’re remotely interested, take a look at Mr. Miller’s profile.
Again, we can keep going in circles. You have a pattern of not backing up your arguments, ignorant suggestions, or just plain wrong assertions. Making blanket assumptions on your part, Rusty, does you no credit and makes you look like a member of this group.
My mom was on welfare when she was a single mother. She got by.
But I don’t really care about our moms (sample size: 2). They aren’t important. If you think every single person can just work their way out of poverty, you’re out of your mind. Some can. Some won’t. But everyone can not. What’s the line in Caddyshack? “The world needs ditchdiggers too.” You really think there will never be a need for low wage labor?
I’m glad your mom is an exception. But to apply that standard to every single poor American is insulting.
As for Senator Byrd, he’s the exception that proves the rule. If he weren’t the King of Pork, his liberal positions would have him voted out of the Senate long ago. A rare Southern Democrat who became more liberal instead of switching to the right side of the aisle.
AlohaGuy said:
Oh, heck, there are always plenty of opportunities to play the race card. I’m sure the sun rising in the east and setting in the west is a product of a racist Supreme Being.
graysonret said:
Grrr. I’m just a cubical Dilbert monkey, not a constitutional scholar, so I figured there had to be some catch I couldn’t see. Although, retroceding W. Virginia back to Virginia wouldn’t be so bad if it got rid of Sen. Robert “Pork-Master” Byrd!
And if the Virginia legislature wanted to avoid a constitutional crisis, even though it’s been over 140 years, they could vote to retroactively cede the territory.
Jim M. said:
Interesting, and thanks for the info. So, by precedent of dealing with residents of other federal territories, it would make sense that our young handsome and charming Rusty should be allowed to vote absentee in the elections of whatever state he moved from. And all other D.C. residents should be able to vote (and pay taxes to) whatever state they moved from, or their parents or grandparents moved from. Shoot, since 1991 when I first moved out of state to grad school, then another state for work, then another city then another state, I’ve been voting absentee at my parents’ residence. (Keeps it simple since I moved so much for my job in the past.)
The other option is to retrocede the residential and commercial portions of D.C. back to Maryland (if they would take it) and keep only the core federal buildings, office buildings, and short term residences for people who claim their home district as their permanent home.
(I speak as though a sensible solution if ever even possible in Washington.)
Rusty:
A shining example of what people say is poverty when it’s actual “public assistance.” You mother wasn’t just getting by… she was also getting by on the public dole which is welfare. My mother (along with her family) did not live on public assistance. You may be shocked to know this but many poor people (including my mother) are proud and don’t like handouts.
A rather disengenous remark on your part. Our mothers aren’t some sample set in your closed off mind. They’re 2 of many many more. They also took different roads. One accommodated the system, the other turn her back on it (my mother).
What I find irritating about your take on poverty are your generalities and your victim plattitudes. For someone whose mother was on welfare, you sound embittered by the experience. For my part, I became much more independent and determined never to be a victim based on my mother’s experience. It all depends on what shapes your life experience (and who does the shaping).
As to the Caddyshack reference, low wage employment is a stepping stone to other opportunities. I myself worked as a bartender and waitress to put myself through school. Some, like my niece, waited tables and worked her way up into upper management and is making a decent salary. Some see low wage employment as their only way to make ends meat and others see it as a way to a better life (such as putting you through school).
Actually it’s quite the other way around. Rusty, you definitely have a chip on your shoulder and your platitudes remind me of my mother’s family growing up. The despair, the permissiveness, not doing anything about their situation. You, in your own way, are implying that most poor people are trapped and will never find a way out because either they’re a) race or b)victimization. With that very attitude you insult people just like my mother who scratched her way up from her dirt poor beginnings.
While the whole of this is true, something about it rings hollow. Politicians are changlings at times. Mr. Byrd is a KKK devotee through and through. I think it quite funny that you think being very liberal will mean being voted out eventually. Does this apply to Kerry and Kennedy? Your take doesn’t account for entrenched politicians.
In many countries, being poor isn’t poverty in their minds. To Americans and most of the Western world, poverty is not only a state of mind, it’s cultural, and socio-economic. Perhaps, you, too, need to put your ideas of what poverty is in perspective as well.
self-edit: they’re = their in 5th paragraph.
Pride doesn’t put food in a baby’s mouth.
I’m sorry, but are you insulting my mother? For accepting help when she needed it? Pride is not always a virtue. Two years of “public handouts” got her through a very difficult time. Are you so callous towards people who use WIC checks or food stamps?
Rusty, you as a product of the welfare system should also understand that there are many people who do whatever it takes (working 2-3 jobs or collecting cans) to stay off welfare and I believe that’s what she was trying to tell you, sorry you feel so sensitive about it. As a 16 y/o I worked in a grocery store and people with Food Stamps often bought filet, rib eye, etc. while my folks were lucky to get a sirloin once or twice a month. When we adopted our son, he was elibible for WIC and Food Stamps due via Social Services. We declined but others we know did not.
I hope that you understand that people are good for the most part and don’t begrudge some minor help but you must understand in your liberal little world there are plenty of people who stay on welfare their entire lives and feel it is owed to them.
Rusty:
It does if you’re an Upstate New York farmer who grows your own food. It does if you’re resourceful, can rely on family, friends, or some sort of support network. For others, it’s a question of personal choice. Why was your mother on her own?
If you perceive an insult, then you’re using your own generalizations to interpret my argument. What you have failed to notice (or the urban poor that pull on your heart strings) are the multitudes of people who live in rural poverty. In some places, community still counts, people help each other and they actually do for themselves. This is starting to change as the Federal government continues to intrude into people’s lives more and more.
You’ve been telling me and everyone else that there will always be poor people. What keeps people poor? Is it just simply determined by lack of opportunities, race, institutionalized beggering? Or is it a sustained sense of dependence on the part of the recipient of benefits such as WIC, welfare, and food stamps? When you become dependent on a system, you fall into the trap of not seeing beyond that dependence.
Are you so callous as to suggest that I think WIC checks and food stamps actually “help” people? They are traps for people who you say have no way out. I find it gauling that you are now an expert on all types of poverty because your mom was on public assistance for a period of time. Try being poor your entire life (as my mother experienced) and then get back to me.
Given your attitude, I see that being dependent on the system has given you not only a victim mentality but a no other way type of thinking. You say this issue isn’t about you or that you’re not a victim but you seem to think that the taxpayer should have some guilt complex because there are poor people. You seem to think that it’s society’s mission to take care of those who either won’t/can’t take care of themselves or have made poor choices and need to be bailed out.
I think the only people who deserve our concern are the elderly and the very young (such as foster kids). Yes, people fall onto hard times but how much was that preventable and how much of it was unavoidable? Your way doesn’t work for everybody. Your sensitivity on this issue seems to indicate your unwillingness to see beyond poverty as a plight to poverty as a symptom of deeper problems within not only one’s family but community.
Your attitude is why LBJ’s Great Society didn’t work and why government can’t solve something as complex and multi-generational as poverty. My mother was from a muli-generationally poor family that knew nothing else but barely scraping by.
Terrig,
Exactly! Thank you. Where I come from (upstate New York) you do whatever it takes. For some reason, Rusty thinks that urban poverty is the “worst.” Try coming from a family that could prevent the poverty but my grandfather (my mother’s father)used the money for booze and women that were not his wife. He also liked to physically and emotionally abuse his family. In this day and age social services would have taken my mom away but in the ’40’s-’60’s, this was not the case.
Sad but true. Rusty doesn’t account for the scroungers of the world who take advantage of the system instead of working an honest days’ labor. Why are tax payers supposed to put up with that?
Poverty can be the greatest life lesson or the worst example of what not to do. After her experience, my mother managed her and my father’s retirements and family budget. They will live comfortably because of her self-control.
This is what I was trying to say. I think that the most vulnerable amongst us deserve our help. However that definition has been expanded to include multi-generational welfare recipients.
Emjem24, he won’t get it because he doesn’t want to. In his world we’re all mean people. I also remember when I worked at Strack & Van Til, that one time a person with food stamps brought asheet cake to checkout. The cashier refused to take the food stamps for it and the woman asked for the manager. I still remember this like it was yesterday, the cake said: “Bon Voyage Marcy & Bill”, additionally she had a strip of filets with her as well which Sharon also refused to ring up. The manager, Dave came and told her to do it and Sharon said he could fire her but her husband worked two jobs since losing his at the mill so they could avoid food stamps and she worked as well. He didn’t fire her but rang it up. He then expected me to carry out her groceries. I told him that he could also fire me because I had helped to purchase those items and I may be tempted to help myself to that yummy cake. He took it out and didn’t fire us but told us that Stracks was all about customer service and blah, blah, blah.
I guess Rusty feels he’s owed something as well and probably feels he deserves it. I agree with you he can’t see past his own nose. He’s probably never been to the poor parts of KY, TN, WV or as you said upstate NY.
Your grandfather sounds like my sister-in-laws father but her mom took two jobs when she left him and they never did go on welfare. Pride is a good thing and there generally are ways to avoid welfare if you look for it. But it’s up to the individual and when other people are working so you don’t have to I guess it doesn’t matter. Oh don’t even get me started on Section 8 which DC has plenty of too.
Terrig and Em,
I grew up relatively poor in upstate NY (on a dairy farm in Lowville for much of that time FWIW), went to college in the Bronx and lived in North East DC during law school where I and the woman I rented a room from were literally the only white people on the street.
Am I thusly qualified to speak?
Because your romantic notions of the rural poor are laughable. There were PLENTY of “multi-generational welfare recipients” where I came from.
And the fact of the matter is that rural poor is different form inner city poor. Take, schools for one. I would say that lack of education is a huge component of poverty, and getting a one is the surest way to pull yourself out.
That said, at least where I grew up in the country, even the relatively crappy schools in the area were far far better than any you would find in Anacostia.
A kid where I am from could go to a school that was at least relatively well-resourced, with teachers who stuck around more than 2 or 3 years, in a safe environment, free from guns, gangs, drugs… and for the most part could have some measure of success if they applied themselves. I myself was a product and beneficiary of that.
I went with my wife once to a school in DC, in an extremely impoverished neighborhood, when her firm ran a book drive for it. What I saw was beyond words. Chains and bars on everything, dilapidated building, hardly any of the facilities and resources that most any decent school would take for granted. I cannot imagine trying to learn in a place like that.
I am not saying that someone going to an inner city school can’t succeed. Obviously personal responsibility is crucial, but this (once) poor country boy can at least recognize that inner city kids, through no fault other than where they happen to live often have 2 strikes against them from the start.
But I guess the clear answer is for them all to scrape up the dough to pack up and move, buy themselves a few acres and a couple of heifers and start living off the land. Can we at least spot them some old “Green Acres” tapes as a training guide? No…I suppose that would be liberal.
Rusty, with no respect because you aren’t due any, why don’t you cut it out? My point, and it is a very valid point, doesn’t need to be appreciated by you to be a valid point.
I haven’t voted for two senators and a representative because I can get no official acknowledgement that my little 1 acre is a state. And I don’t like you belittling me because because I’m being denied my basic human rights to have my own state.
All I got out of your response is that you want to continue to keep me down. Is it because I’m white?
JHSII, it’s because you already have federal representation. It’s no one’s right to be part of a state. It is everyone’s right to have a representative in what is supposed to be a republic.
Thanks, chapoutier for the help there. I don’t think emjem and terrig understand that if everyone pulled themselved up by the bootstraps and got college degrees…we’d just have janitors with college degrees. The system absolutely depends on a poor working class. The only way to avoid it is communism where everyone is poor. It’s not really a realistic alternative.
Chap:
I don’t think I’m speaking from any sort of romantic point of view. I’m well aware of the rural welfare recipients as well as the urban ones.
I think that you’re being a little simplistic here. There are a lot of rural schools hurting just like the urban ones. Rural schools are generally much smaller than urban ones but also have trouble attacting teachers who want to stay.
Both my maternal grandparents had only an 8th-9th grade education. Back then, if your farming family needed your labor, you were better off dropping out to help your family survive. Education is only one way of pulling yourself out. If you have no role models or abusive home life like my mom, that could have encouraged her not to achieve success as easily as dropping out.
I’ve taught in such a place. Imagine what teachers have to deal with. Urban schools look like that because of apathy, lack of community involvement, and the breakdown of the family. As a teacher, I used to call parents all the time about their kids (parent teacher conferences, behavior, grades) and most on the lower socio-economic scale did not want to work with me. Some did. Disinterested parents typically produce apathetic children (this goes for all socio-economic groups but is hard to measure if the kid has beneficial influences like extracurricular activies, supportive friends/family). I’ve dealt with both successful and unsuccessful single parents who represent the different roads many people take in urban areas. On the whole, urban schools are a mixed bag. Some work, others fail. It depends on the community and the school.
I would buy your argument if I hadn’t read this passage. It smacks of condescending paternalism at best. Have you been to an Indian reservation lately? Look how much Federal paternalism has done for them. They are a good example of how alcoholism, deteriorating family structure, and personal choices determines one’s future path.
As to your assessment of urban schools, your pity does their children not much good. I don’t buy your “2 strikes” argument. I’ve met many urban families (especially single parent ones) who struggled but succeeded. These parents kept their kids out of gangs and away from other dangerous influences like drugs/alchohol. There are successes and there are failures. Perhaps, if we gave urban families more options like vouchers their children wouldn’t be “statistics?”
Respectfully, this was not what I advocated. Your sarcasm really doesn’t address the real issue, now does it? I’m sure you realize, that many rural people do not live on farms anymore and that many small farms have gone bankrupt over the past 20-30 years. As someone whose mother and father grew up in farming families, I saw many such farms go belly up. It still pains me to this day.
I think you look at the issue of poverty from a distant, paternalistic viewpoint. I (and others) are looking at it through a broader lense. You never addressed issues such as: breakdown of the family, community apathy, racial division, substance abuse, high school drop outs, lack of respect, etc.. You briefly touched on gangs but why do you think kids join them? Perhaps, if there was any real familial support structure at all, many of these issues could be combated.
Since I’ve tarried too long, one final note: if we give our kids either no or low expectations, how will they perform? This is an issue in the broader public education system but one that is particularly felt in urban areas. Having worked in many different urban environments, I’ve seen this first hand. Throwing money at a problem like poverty has never worked the many times it’s been tried (just as it hasn’t with public education). This also holds true for giving away land, cows, etc. because that feeds dependency and a never-ending pipeline of goodies.
People need to learn how to take care of themselves and they never will if there’s always a handout they can rely on because either they’re rural or urban poor.
Rusty:
Absolutely the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a while. Rusty, I knew you were a race pimp but I didn’t know you were a class warfare advocate as well. I’ve never advocated college education for everyone. Not everyone in the US has that work ethic or desire. If I haven’t stated it already, I’m in favor of vocational training. College isn’t for everyone. Since my father was a steamfitter/plumber most of his life and considered working class, he didn’t expect any support from the government. Good try there.
No, the system doesn’t “absolutely” depend on the working poor. There are people like scientists, teachers, nurses, engineers, police officers, firemen, mechanics, plumbers, etc. who are the underpinnings of our society as well. Are they the “working poor?” Who are you defining as the working poor: hotel workers, food service workers, etc.? Who?
I think we’re all beginning to see where you and Chap fall on this issue.
Something I think that you and Chap don’t admit is that the only way to “cushion” the blow of “poverty” is heavy government intervention. This would be defined as socialism. You’ve been playing the victimization/race/class card this entire forum which leads me to believe that you and Hugo Chavez would get along just fine.
Do you want the American taxpayer to subsidize the “working poor?” Yes or no. If it’s yes then you’re a socialist pimp and if it’s no… then what’s your idea to help the “working poor?”
chap, thanks for cutting through all of the supercillious (there’s your word for the day soap…look it up; it’ll feel familiar) BS and getting to the crux of the matter. Interesting to me that one only commenter (and let’s give soap credit here) responded to your challenge. Pretty telling I would say.
Dakine:
I don’t think you would understand the “crux” of the matter if the actual Constitution hit you in the face. What do you not understand here… if the founders intended D.C. to be an “administrative district” because D.C. is the seat of the federal government, why supercede that? Yes, let’s give voting rights to the crack whores, welfare recipients, and all those kind folks who need indulgent paternalism. Let’s hope that illegals don’t fit into that mix too, okay?
Here’s two words to add to your backpocket dictionary: “unctious” and “sententious.” Dakine is an unctious and sententious troll. Did you say hi to the other members of the troll liberation front this morning?
Absolutely this is a broader issue and my response was on one very narrow (but I think legitimate) point regarding differing educational opportunities. I do believe that change needs to start from the bottom up, which is what I think you are getting at here. Nothing gets done without substantive change and acceptance of responsibility at the individual/family/community level.
But what to do in the meantime? I think many here would say, just turn off the spigot and let these people finally have to fend for themselves, that they will never become self reliant if they can take the easy way out.
And that is a very attractive position, and to a large extent, true. I think it poses two real-world dilemmas, though. First, I (and I believe Rusty) feel that inherent in capitalism is the fact that there is going to be at least some inherent poverty. I really don’t want to get into a huge discussion about capitalism vs. socialism, as that is a bit beyond the scope here. But let me just answer this query:
Yep, those you mentioned are a good start. And our society needs and values those services. The fact that they do not involve a lot of skill does not diminish their inherent value to us, just the amount we are willing to pay any one particular person to perform them. The question then becomes: Is what we are willing to pay enough to live on? And if not what responsibility does the society which benefits from those services have to make up the difference. Again too broad for this discussion, and I am far from an expert on economic theory.
So let me point out the second issue I see, which I think you hit on as well:
The obvious group here are children. I think the problem is that, unless you want to start pulling kids out of homes and putting them into foster care, oftentimes helping the most vulnerable means helping the parent whether they deserve it or not. I mean I get it. No one wants to see their tax dollars go to support some lazy SOB that won’t get off their butt to try and improve their situation. But am I going to let their kid starve or live on the street? We should target that care to help those really deserving and in need as much as possible. Welfare reform, workfare, whatever are all great. But sometimes there is only so much you can do and then it becomes a matter of i) letting those innocents suffer or ii) biting the bullet and providing assistance to those that may not necessarily deserve it.
Not sure how merely recognizing that a kid who has to grow up in a blighted innner city is going to have a tougher time (not impossible, just tougher) succeeding that one who has not is either condescending or paternalistic. I think this is fact. Is anyone willing to argue with me on that. Now, you may feel that my preferred solutions to such are condescending or paternalistic, but that is a separate issue.
But I think the problem is that there just aren’t as many good solid blue collar jobs anymore. It has gotten to a point where there is a huge low-skill job market, a huge high-skill job market and increasingly less in between.
Chap:
What is wrong with this? Why should people live off the public dole their entire lives? Don’t you think this is wrong?
The market/industry sets the value on those jobs not society. That is not society’s responsibility. What are you proposing? Do you want government to set prices for a specific industry’s labor? Where do you factor in inflation and the falling dollar? Your take isn’t the whole story.
I think you underestimate the determination and willpower of the human heart. I think you overestimate how much a role society should play in a kid’s success or failure. How much do you think American taxpayers should pay to control what is ultimately human choice? How is it society’s fault that a kid joins a gang, does drugs, or drops out of school? I think when you limit your horizons because of where you live is when I get off your thought train. I’ve had good friends come from parts of NYC no one would want to live and they’re taking care of themselves. I also have friends from other countries that have become naturalized citizens remark to me that poverty isn’t what it used to be when you compare American poverty vs. Third World Poverty.
chapoutier, rusty & dakine,
Wow, what is there to say. When did I ever say I had a romantic view of rural poor? You three are laughable at best, sad and pathetic at worse. I just know plenty of people who did not go on welfare and I know plenty of city people who did not as well. However, it’s probably embarrassing to have been on welfare, I wouldn’t know, I’ve been working since 14 and paying into the system since then. I know plenty of people both black and white who do work multiple jobs to avoid welfare but it’s easier I am sure to sit on your butt and feel it’s owed to you. Others, tend to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and the fact that you think that cannot be done is sad. Yes, socialism is coming and you can help pay for it. Just today I saw in the Washington Times where people die at a greater rate in the UK because of the “free healthcare” system which is coming soon. How long before the US sees the same thing?
Where did I ever advocate everyone goes to college Rusty? Never, in fact not everyone is college material but many go into the military and on to trade school and do very well. You see what you want to see. It’s easier I guess to be on welfare I suppose and to blame others for the wrongs in your life. I am sorry for all of you liberals, you’re so very unhappy.
Work Hard, Be Happy, Make a Liberal Mad!
I think I answered this question. Of course it is wrong for people to simply go through their life on the public dole and not try to help themselves. No one here is arguing otherwise. I merely pointed out some practical concerns.
No…the market/industry sets the price at which we have to pay for a service, not that service’s intrinsic worth. Something can have a very high worth to us but not be every expensive because supply is so high.
More later…work beckons. Don’t want to end up on the street.
chapoutier, again let me point out to you that I am so sorry you no longer feel that people in this great country are able to do well if they want to. Not everyone in the inner city is drug or gang involved but many are. Yes, there is hopelessness and you and your liberal pals are the worst of it. I have taught in the inner city being the only one of 3 white people at the school. I saw many teachers giving out worksheets but to be fair, I also saw the same thing at so called “rich” schools. It’s up to the individual teacher to do his or her job and to do it right. Not every student I had did well or quite frankly wanted to do well. They made more money on the streets then doing an honest days work for an honest days pay. I even taught a kid who was executed but he was in the “greatest school” in the district. The mindset of people not being able to do well, no matter their circumstances saddens me. Liberals are always looking for someone to blame besides themselves and sorry for Rusty, but there are plenty of people who do what they have to do to avoid welfare. I am sure that sounds mean and in your mind it probably is, it’s just for people like me who paid our own way to college, (working while I did it), it pains me to see people who refuse to do as much for themselves. If life is so bad here, why do we have so many people trying to come here everyday? Legals and illegals come to this country for a better life. If it’s so bad here, why don’t they just stay at home? Because it’s not as bad as you want it but go ahead and live in Green Acres yourself Chap, you can have a great time and I’m sure you’ll love it. Yes, get back to work millions on welfare are depending on you!
terrig,
If this:
is what you get out of anything I or Rusty or anyone else said, you are either disingenuous or obtuse.
Let’s try to keep the absurd overgeneralizations and mischaracterizations to a minimum, okay?
Oh and the Enter button is your friend. Use it, dare I say…liberally? It will make following your ramblings a bit easier.
Chap, you’re obtuse. That’s exactly what I get out of your ramblings. So sorry you’re offended. I’m glad you think you’re cute, but why are you typing? The people on welfare are depending upon you to feed them. So please, get back to work and feed those people!
SmartA$$, did you mean “preview” button. Sorry you’re not smart enough to follow my “so called ramblings” but liberals do seem to have a problem with logic don’t they?
No. I mean paragraphs are nice and help the reader. They at the very least show you are trying to organize your thoughts and respond to a particular point or make a particular argument rather than just spewing onto the screen every angry thought that pours out of your head in real time.
Chap:
I think the “solid blue collar job” is a fallacy. Both blue and white collar folks have to keep current in their skills, retrain, even change jobs to remain competive. The low skill market will always pay low because they are menial jobs. Some people do these jobs their entire lives but if you’re doing the same job where the standard wage is $5.15 per hour (look at the explosion of chain restaurants for instance)your salary will always be low.
Since I’ve experienced this myself (losing jobs), I’ve had to adapt. I’ve seen my mother do the same thing. A lot of Americans get complacent and think they’ll never lose their job. If you get in that mindset, never update your skills, look for opportunities for advancement or better opportunities overall you never get anywhere.
Emjem, I still don’t understand. If everyone gets trained or graduated from college or masters a skill, then that will fix poverty?
So who’s going to be a cashier? Who is going to wait tables? Who is going to clean our office bathrooms?
Low wage/low skill jobs grease the cogs of the American economy. We are not able or willing to pay janitors above the poverty line. Even if we were, there is always someone willing to do the job for less. If we have a surplus of skilled workers, some of those skilled workers will inevitably work at a “low skill” job.
And terrig, I don’t think there’s any shame in accepting welfare. As my mom says, there’s never any shame in doing whatever you can to help yourself or your child. I agree that living on welfare forever is nothing to be proud of, but using the government when you really need the extra push is the right thing to do.
Chap:
Actually, Terrig makes a good point. Weren’t you the one who said this:
Or this:
You’re implying here that there is a stacked set of circumstances for people either because they’re from a “blighted” city or other factors. Either rephrase or this is a foolish assertion on your part. Furthermore, my home life wasn’t great growing up (I was raised virtually by my mother) so were the circumstances stacked against me? My mother’s family routinely ridiculed me for wanting to go to college, trying to make myself better than them. I almost quit high school because I felt discouraged. A teacher talked me out of it. Perhaps, if there were more mentoring opportunities (there are mentoring programs out there) between adults and kids there wouldn’t be kids dropping out at all.
A BS moment for Rusty (this relates to one of those gross mischaracterizations you were complaining about with Terrig):
Yeah, Republicans, as a group, want to “disenfranchise” D.C. voters or the black community or whatever victim group Rusty wants to champion at the moment. Gosh, just like those beneficent Dems who want everything (like Social Security) to stay unfixed (illegal immigration).
How ’bout another gross mischaracterization on Rusty’s part: