rumitoid

Dave, are you saying there was no finacial crisis back in 2008 due to Bush policy changes? It's just a "meme" and not reality? What about the de-regulation of Wall Street and the loosening of mortgage standards that lead that industry to not be just irresponsible in their greed but to felony misconduct.

What I see in making those on assistance irresponsible slackers that made poor life choices and want the rest of us to pay for their mistakes is an attempt to exorcise any sense of responsibility for our fellow citizens that have fallen on hard times. One can feel righteous in denying food stamps and any other assistance, even when it is children and the elderly that mostly suffer for these tactics. This goes to the point: what percentage do you think of those on any assistance are there by individual poor life choices? Why not make a point about how many on Wall Street are rich by gouging and irresponsible practices?

Seemingly hardworking, honest, and productive citizens, about 2.6 million of them, were forced to get help from the government: is that a meme of reality?

The article also makes liberals avid supporters of helping the "poor choice" crowd because they have no traditional values and are moral relativist: why didn't you address that?

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

If you can put yourself in the place of a black woman who doesn't believe it helps her race by all these programs that require little work. The ones that open their eyes are seeing themselves trapped in a system. That is r****t right there when you trap a group of people in a system and that system is 50 years old.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Because I've been hearing from the left that tea partiers are r****t and she self describes as a tea partier.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

That's the left's main point, r****t! When a black woman or man speaks out agaist what the left wants the names start flying but when Al opens his mouth that is all good.

Democrats need to step back and take a long hard look at their beliefs.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

"What about the de-regulation of Wall Street and the loosening of mortgage standards"

What deregulation of Wall Street are you referring to? Bush signed and enforced Sarbannes-Oaxley - are you saying that was deregulation? What loosening of mortgage standards was Bush responsible for. His people did try to tighten up Fannie and Freddie and were savaged by Barnie Franks, who wanted to roll the dice more. Bush had nothing to do with mortgage standards that I am aware of, tell us what you are aware in that regards.

As to those living in poverty based on bad choices, that is what Parker's article was referring to, not to those who lost their jobs with the recession, but those who have made bad choices and live in poverty and government dependency because of that - and that is exactly what I addressed.

The entire meme regarding Bush and the recession has no substantial facts behind it. Bush was anything but a real conservative and the idea that his economic policies was solely to blame for the housing/mortgage bust is mindless repitition by Democrats meant to deflect.

rumitoid

Again, what % do you believe are on assistance by their poor choices?
No one said Bush was solely to blame.
What caused the economic crisis, forcing millions into some form of government assistance?

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

"Again, what % do you believe are on assistance by their poor choices?"

I don't know, but wh**ever it is is too much. If percentage is important to you, start with Parker's 40% of children being born with Medicaid dollars.

"No one said Bush was solely to blame" - you said Bush's economic policies were responsible. You then stated the meme that it was deregulation of Wall Street. I showed you were he signed and implemented regulation in the form of Sarbannes-Oaxley - am still waiting for what you think was de-regulated. I realize that was the meme your political leaders issed to you in the hope you'd never ask the question I've asked of you.


"What caused the economic crisis, forcing millions into some form of government assistance?"

The housing and mortgage bubble was largely caused by government getting involved in a market where they didn't belong, and where they, in the form of Fannie and Freddie, suggested that the government had the backs of those who recklessly speculated.

As to forcing millions into some form of government assistance, the real question is why so many of them remain in that condition 5 years later.

dhelix33

There is ample evidence for reasons related to the high black poverty rate in America. It is called institutional w***e s*******y. For the sake of argument I present these three points for logical analysis and a conclusion:

1. If skin color, or any other placeholder we might use for designating race, is irrelevant to human capability, then the various outcomes of the human adventure should be proportionately present within different racial groups.

That is, there should be a proportionately equal number of black geniuses, scoundrels, average folk, etc. as there are white members of these various human types. Similarly, relevant social outcomes should be proportionately equal. Thus, there should be proportionately equal amounts of black and white poverty, incarceration, unemployment, educational success and failure, etc. This argument would apply to all other racial groups as well. In terms for how this thread has flowed that I am commenting in, I am limiting myself here to a comparison of b****s and w****s in America.

That being said, The presence of disproportionate outcomes for b****s and w****s is verification there is racial ine******y here in America.

2. The possible causes of racial ine******y are either external or internal to the group experiencing the ine******y.

There are either some kinds of public (political, social, economic, etc.) stacking of the deck against the group that experiences disproportionately bad outcomes and in favor of the group experiencing disproportionately good outcomes, and/or, there are some kinds of failure, fault, or “problem” (cultural, intellectual, moral, biological, etc) within one group, aggregately considered, relative to the other.

The first explanation is racial injustice, and the second outcome is racial inferiority or superiority.

3. There are only three possible general explanations for racial ine******y:

a) caused exclusively by external causes;
b) caused exclusively by internal causes;
or b) caused by a combination of external and internal causes (a "Both" argument).

The first explanation posits that racial ine******y is exclusively a public and political problem, by all available evidence available this is the correct explanation.

The second explanation is a blatant assertion of w***e s*******y and must be rejected in all its forms.

The third option is by far the most popular explanation, which I have identified as the “Both" argument. Its popularity is a result of a willingness to grant that some public and political causes of racial ine******y continue to be a partial explanation for racial ine******y, but also of the belief that bad personal choices by some black individuals are a root cause of racial ine******y, as well.

This latter conclusion has an intuitive plausibility given that racial ine******y is characterized by disproportionate bad outcomes and bad individual choices can create the same kind of bad outcomes. However, the plausibility of this position does not stand up under scrutiny.

In closure. Presenting that racial ine******y is exclusively a public and political problem avoids the implicit or explicit affirmation of the social construct of "race" to provide w***e s*******y.

rumitoid

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/06/14/499523/5-reasons-americans-are-right-to-blame-bush-for-the-bad-economy/

How many are there still on the books 5 years later?

As of 2003, this practice was removed by the passage of the Sarbines-Oxley Act. Signed, notably, by George W. Bush. At the same time, however, this same president invoked an obscure 1863 law forbidding states to regulate local banks.

You have no idea why the % is important? What if it were a hundred %? What would it mean if it were 0.05%? (40% of children made poor choices being born?)

Lefty meme:
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/info_7748733_deregulation-markets-under-george-bush.html#ixzz2i0fJ1EBK

Causes of financial crisis:
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2011/01/27/fcic-report-10-causes-of-the-financial-crisis/

And you continue to avoid how she described liberals.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

"1. If skin color, or any other placeholder we might use for designating race, is irrelevant to human capability, then the various outcomes of the human adventure should be proportionately present within different racial groups"

If is a big word, and in this case very operational. There is no evidence in this world that human capability is equally dispersed in all races. Actually Dr. Sowell has fully debunked this stupid assertion very effectively. However, if what he's written isn't sufficient evidence, then you need to believe the NBA practices r****m to a very large degree.

Once one realizes that, the entire remaining rant of yours boils down to self delusion.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

"How many are there still on the books 5 years later?" = food stamp recipients are 50% higher than 5 years ago.


"As of 2003, this practice was removed by the passage of the Sarbines-Oxley Act. Signed, notably, by George W. Bush. At the same time, however, this same president invoked an obscure 1863 law forbidding states to regulate local banks"

What practic was removed by Sarbannes-Oaxley?
As to states regulating local banks, you have to be kidding if you think the banks involved were state banks. Wow, where do you guys dig up this stuff?

"ou have no idea why the % is important? What if it were a hundred %? What would it mean if it were 0.05%? (40% of children made poor choices being born?)"

Perhaps you haven't studied biology. Children do not make choices regarding their birth - it is choices made by parents that result in their birth. Now, I would have thought that even a liberal, if adult, would have known that.

Reading l*****t opinions regarding political blame has no more credence than reading rightist opinions. I ask again, what Bush policies - and you come up with regulation of state banks. How can one take such stuff seriously?

dhelix33

One realizes that those people who want to hold on to ignorant and blatantly r****t views will immediately reject a logical and precise analysis of w***e s*******y because they cannot handle the t***h.

rumitoid

You think that second link is l*****t? Curious.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

So, Dr Sowell holds r****t views - and the NBA is r****t - you don't recognize logical thought when it is right in front of you.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

I don't care what individual pundits have to say, I am fully capable of speaking for myself - I've offered you clear response to your allegations - and you try to use opinionated pundits.

Once again I will give you a chance to explain what policy of Bush's caused the collapse - and remaing confident you are not up to the challenge