|
-
1
January 9, 2012 5:12:50 PM PST
Who preps these guys? Would you vote for one of them?
Both Gingrich and Santorum faced criticism this week when they spoke of overhauling food stamps and other welfare programs by seeming to equate food stamp recipients and blacks. Gingrich said he would encourage blacks to demand paychecks, not food stamps, and Santorum said that he did not want to "make black people's lives better by giving them somebody else's money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money."
According to 2010 census numbers, about 26 percent of food stamp recipients are African-American, while 49 percent are white and 20 percent are Hispanic.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/09/4172693/gop-candidates-wade-into-food.html
-
2
January 9, 2012 6:44:07 PM PST
Yeah, that is pretty telling about their mindsets.
-
3
January 10, 2012 8:48:41 AM PST
Well if you look at the overall scope, black people collect wellfare at a much higher rate due to the fact that they only make up about 15% of the total population while whites make up about 70+% of the total population which is about 5 times that of blacks.
-
4
January 10, 2012 3:18:35 PM PST
What's being advocated by Newt is cutting funding to programs that serve the poor. Does he also advocate cutting defense funds as well?
-
5
January 10, 2012 4:16:31 PM PST
It's pretty clear what Newt was saying.
"Newt Gingrich said Thursday he is willing to go before the NAACP and urge blacks to demand paychecks, not food stamps."
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/01/05/4166079/gingrich-to-black-people-paychecks.html#storylink=cpy
Newt was going to talk to a group of black people and tell them that they (as with all people) shouldn't accept food stamps but should demand jobs giving them paychecks. That fighting for an opportunity to get a paycheck is much more rewarding than accepting or even voting for more welfare.
I guess in the future Newt should not not talk to a group of African-Americans like the NAACP. If he says "black people" to a group of black people he will be called a racist.
I think the mindset is, EVERYONE, yes even African-Americans are in that group of EVERYONE, would be better served with a paycheck in hand and not food stamps.
-
6
January 10, 2012 5:11:11 PM PST
Newt presented a viewpoint that isn't supported by the facts and he should know better or could have simply looked up the U.S. D..A data on the SNAP ( food stamp) program and not point to a specific racial group
48 percent of SNAP recipients are children. 6 percent are elderly.
40 percent of the households receiving SNAP benefits had household earnings
The VAST majority of the millions receiving SNAP benefits do not receive cash welfare benefits (TANF) - less than 10 percent or General Assistance ( 5 percent)
The bigger problem is that there are many working poor who need better paying jobs to make ends meet. It a large fiction that a significant number of people would prefer to be on the dole rather than work and,,,,, receive a livable wage.
-
7
January 11, 2012 12:46:24 AM PST
I am sure it's not the first time a politician got his numbers wrong. It's definitely not the first time the opponents have used the race card dishonestly.
"The bigger problem is that there are many working poor who need better paying jobs to make ends meet"
Yes, exactly what Newt was getting at. Now don't get me wrong, Newt's not my guy. But I just want to make sure if you say that and he says that and I say that, then we really are all on the same page. Jobs are better than handouts.
-
8
January 11, 2012 9:55:45 AM PST
In 2008 there was a story about spending $300 million to advertise food assistance programs because they were so underused. I believe we are seeing the results of this increased exposure, along with the recent economic situation.
As for this post, the facts are that appox. 7% of whites use food stamps. Approx. 15% of Latinos. Appox. 25% of blacks. That was their point. Each of these numbers would go higher if everyone eligible was to use them.
There is also stories on SNAP and other programs that tell of roughly 85%-95% of black children are using some form of food assistance.
-
9
January 26, 2012 8:54:41 AM PST
In revisiting the issue of whether Republicans use race in campaigning in this election, here is a list and discussion of the 10 most racist moments by the GOP in the campaign so far.
http://www.alternet.org/story/153895/the_10_most_racist_moments_of_the_gop_primary_%28so_far%29?akid=8174.210405.17Z2Fl&rd=1&t=2
-
10
January 26, 2012 5:36:02 PM PST
And it just keeps getting worse.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R), already under fire for saying he would veto a gay marriage bill and prefers a referendum on the issue, is drawing sharp criticism from black leaders for saying that people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights.
Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D), who supports gay marriage, criticized the comment. "I shudder to think what would have happened if the civil rights gains, heroically established by courageous lawmakers in the 1960s, were instead conveniently left up to popular votes in our 50 states," he said, according to the Newark Star-Ledger.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/26/chris-christie-gay-marriage-civil-rights_n_1234276.html
-
11
January 26, 2012 9:12:27 PM PST
What are some of you saying here? That the under employed should go hungry? I hear folks say get a job ANY job, evn McDonalds, Walmart etc...and if folks take them and are unable to feed their families, oh well!
-
12
January 26, 2012 10:26:21 PM PST
Wow Oceans, that was a horrible commentary. Where do I start? Most of the article lacked actual quotes, took things out of context (even when context has been given already), failed to actually qualify as racism (mentioning a demographic such as race in a discussion about said race is not racism, sorry), and doesn't pass even third grade critical thought.
It was basically an unsubstantiated commentary hit piece designed to create FUD and divide people. Sorry, I am going to have to take that race card and cut it up, you've maxed it and failed to pay the bills!
You can't say a comment talking about race equals a person is a racist bigot.
If that were the case then all these people are racists:
http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2010/01/left-wing-knockouts-when-democrats-get-racist
http://trommetter.com/log/archives/2009/10/15/10-dumb-racist-things-democrats-have-said/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2484587/posts
DEMOCRAT: Joe Biden
QUOTE: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Senate majority leader Harry Reid said that Obama, as a black candidate, could be successful thanks, in part, to his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Harry Apologized.
I am reminded by what one of our candidates said regarding his grandmother, "she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know...there's a reaction that's been bred into our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society"
That came from the top Democratic Presidential candidate this year, Barrack Obama. Let's see, typical white person. I wonder what he means when he said typical. It sounds like he just summarized a group of people according to the color of their skin.
Well, let's analyze this, his grandmother is "... a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe" (Obama again). That's what he was mentioning as typical of white people. So white people in his mind are racists. Oh, but it's not their fault, it's been "bred" into them in his worldview. It's in their genetics to be racists. Now he probably believes not all of them white fold are racist, but just the typical ones, you know most of them. (there is sarcasm dripping from this analysis).
---
Oceans, this is the same tired thread we put to bed in the "Democrats Racist?" topic.
It's time to stop crying wolf on racism.
-
13
January 27, 2012 8:00:43 AM PST
I'm not tired. There is so much new material to let it go.
In addition, it is pertinent to this electtion.
How about not dredging up old material and sticking with what's going on now?
Tired of this thread, efritz? Then drop it.
As for me, I am having way too much fun following this primary! I guess I need to get a life.......
-
14
January 27, 2012 8:19:36 PM PST
Oceans,
You said, "I'm not tired."
Oh, I get that. It's obvious you want to drag this dead horse through the mud over the hills into the swamps and back again. What I am saying is the constant crying of "racism" where none exists wears thin.
In fact it looses all of it's effectiveness because people realize it's overused incorrectly to brand opponents unfairly. It also minimizes our ability to respond to true racism when/where it exists.
I would invite you to research the difference between discussing race and being a racist bigot.
-
15
January 27, 2012 8:25:29 PM PST
This thread will die when you don't bite back.
By the way, you are the one dragging the dead horses; I, on the other hand, have introduced new fodder in evidence which seems to show racial bigotry.
-
16
January 27, 2012 11:56:17 PM PST
Oceans,
The problem is, your "fodder" was not evidence at all. It was a liberal opinion piece making exagerated assumptions, out of context statements. Some weren't even about race at all! Most didn't even have quotes so it was purely an opinion that lacked backing!
It's a stretch to say they were racist. Just like all the quotes I gave. They are similarly just off hand comments that include race, some even mean and incensitive but hardly reveal the politicians are racist.
It's a perpetuated lie to distract people from the issues and attack their character so as to misdirect people from voting for them. I mean after all, who could vote for a racist?
-
17
January 28, 2012 10:22:22 AM PST
The Economist, a weekly publication of international news which is London based (and to which I subscribe), has interesting perspectives on American politics. In this analysis of Newt's remark on the "food stamp President", an important question is raised regarding an Obama presidency vs. a McCain presidency.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/newt-gingrich
-
18
January 28, 2012 4:58:00 PM PST
Maybe Newt could team up with Ralph Kramden and do a "To the Moon" campaign.
|
|
|
