Posted by Tina
Most of you have noticed by now that I firmly believe the modern feminist movement is insane and has undermined traditional roles that once made our families and our nation strong and prosperous. Today I read a great article at PJ Media with a quote at the top I felt compelled to share given my belief:
“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
The emerging American male role model, properly raised to be feminist , noncommittally “fair”, covertly manipulative, a bit bossy, and therefore, weak and demoralized!
Our nation reflects the vacuum that’s been created by such an imbalance in the male/female energies. We are a diminished, rudderless boat lost at sea with storms threatening to swamp us. The world is not fair, it requires strong male leadership. Liberals and feminists don’t understand this. They confuse strength with thuggish brutality…and try to eliminate it by crushing maleness…a fatal mistake.
Read the article; contrast between Rick Perry as governor of Texas and you know who, the schoooooom man, as “leader” of our nation.
“Most of you have noticed by now that I firmly believe the modern feminist movement is insane”
Name a modern feminist without looking it up on Google.
Libby
Libby
Gloria Stienam and the Code Pink Lady
Sandra Fluke
Nancy Pelosi
Debra Wasserman Schultz
Elizabeth Warren
Peggy, that’s good, Fluke is a stereotypical feminist in search of a cause.
Lady Gaga.
Libby a modern feminist? I find that hard to believe. Not even feminists are that stupid.
Queen Pelosi wins the Feminist crown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4P3IkdA7Iw
Politifacts rates Pelosi’s statement as “False.”
Nancy Pelosi says Supreme Court is ‘five guys who start determining what contraceptions are legal’:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/11/nancy-pelosi/nancy-pelosi-says-supreme-court-five-guys-who-star/
WOW, way over the top!! Is this what idiot Democrats are reading? This misogynist most believe women are as dumb as he is.
Wake Up Republican Women, Your Party Hates You:
“Ladies, ladies, ladies, what’s it going to take for you to stop bashing yourself in the face with a meat mallet every Election Day? Does the twisted, sanctimonious GOP state senator you voted for have to propose legislation making it legal for you to be sold into white slavery because… well… just because? Does the whacko Tea Party congressman you supported have to craft a bill saying that you should be stoned in the street (no, not the good kind of stoned) for wearing a halter-top in public? Do the nutjobs you repeatedly, repeatedly vote for have to repeal the 19th Amendment (you know, the one that enfranchises women), before you finally decide to vote for a sane person? (Oops, sorry, too late, you won’t be able to vote for a sane person. Or a crazy one either. Or anybody.)
Seriously, ladies, to what absurd level of fracking-depth lunacy do these bottom-feeding misogynists (is that redundant?) have to sink before you perceive, in your Limbaugh-inspired wisdom, that perhaps, just perhaps, your beloved Republican Party doesn’t have your best interests in mind?
Ladies, in case you haven’t noticed, the Republican geniuses you robotically vote for have saddled their horses for a Holy Crusade and guess who the infidels are? They’ve already suggested that you should show a little more enthusiasm about getting raped because it’s all part of The Almighty’s glorious plan; that men should be allowed, allowed to rape you if abortion is legal; that your privates should be probed for no legitimate reason; that hospitals should allow you to die rather than perform life-saving abortions.
If that doesn’t piss you off even a teeny-weeny bit, some of your GOP buddies have also opined that you should stay home with the kids instead of working; that perhaps some of you should not be allowed to vote anymore; that you should get a judge’s permission to date or have sex if you’re going through a divorce.”
Continued, if you can stomach the hatred and stupid rantings..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-blumenthal/wake-up-republican-women-_b_5571730.html
Here is the PERFECT response to the idiot misogynist who wrote that stupid article above.
15 Sassy Photos Show Why These Women are Rejecting the Feminist Movement:
“Posted to the Women Against Feminism Tumblr and reported via Buzzfeed, these 15 pictures show women explaining why they do not need feminism.
They refuse to be a victim – they are strong, independent adults capable of taking care of themselves.”
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/07/156463-15-women-share-reasons-dont-need-empowered-feminist-movement/
Steinham was in my opinion the orifinal “Insane” feminist.
Wow guys, thanks for taking care of that question in my absence today.
And Peggy those young women have given me a big lift…WOW! It’s so good to see young women who know their strengths, don’t see themselves as victims, have respect for men, and take personal responsibility for their lives and choices. Fantastic.
This will make everyone smile, except liberals of course.
The left isn’t going to like who conservative commentator Katie Pavlich says is a REAL women’s rights group:
“Conservative commentator Katie Pavlich has a message for the left: “God made man and God made woman, but Sam Colt made them equal.”
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/07/11/the-left-isnt-going-to-like-who-conservative-commentator-katie-pavlich-says-is-a-real-womens-rights-group/
I was looking for other news to post and found this charming feminist, modern, of course.
Are you actually expecting me to take that drivel seriously?
“Perry, the gun-slinging, tough-talking, God-fearing Texas governor, reminds us of what we’ve been missing:….”
Yeah … a gun-slinging, tough-talking, God-fearing moron … and we are NOT missing him.
Good goddamn riddance, I say. Machismo moronics are the very last thing that this country has ever needed in public office.
I dare say that the O-man’s sober and considered intellectualism … does not get you hot. But it’s not supposed to. You want to get hot, rent a movie … and stay the hell out of global affairs … you are not suited to deal with them … or even to have an opinion about them.
Boy Tina, what a difference between the women in the link I provided and the woman in the one you did.
The women in my link gave me hope and the feeling of being proud to be a woman. The one in yours was a total embarrassment.
I’ll bet she doesn’t have a job any more since she was wearing a Burger King shirt.
Wonder if she went to the same school where the instructor attacked those anti-abortion students and that’s where she got her horrible attitude and complete contempt treatment toward people who believe differently.
Hate to break it to you Libby but you are not “we”.
And this:
” Machismo moronics are the very last thing that this country has ever needed in public office.”
Setting aside your own moronic caricature of men, a man is exactly what we need. The feminist women that are actually running the WH have made a colossal mess of THE ENTIRE WORLD!
“sober and considered intellectualism”
It actual takes an intellect to qualify…he doesn’t. He is schooled in activism and his brand of phony charm does little to make up for the actual empty suit.
“and stay the hell out of global affairs … you are not suited to deal with them … or even to have an opinion about them.”
I’ve called it a hell of a lot better than either YOU or the O man so your opinion means zot.
Your panties are in a bunch ’cause you know I’ve been right and you have been wrong. Your guy has not created a utopian dream; he has created chaos and despair…everywhere.
Ooops, forgot to mention The English Major Brat, a shrill, modern feminist castrati if there ever was one.
Re #7 Peggy : Harry Reid upped Pelosi’s obnoxious sexism baiting by including sexist race baiting —
“The one thing we are going to do during this work period, sooner rather than later, is to ensure that women’s lives are not determined by virtue of five white men.”
EDITORIAL: Colorblind Harry Reid continues to divide
https://www.reviewjournal.com/opinion/editorial-colorblind-harry-reid-continues-divide
If you wonder who The English Major Boob is aping, you need look no further than Pelosi and Reid.
Jack…you seriously named Gloria Steinham as a “modern” feminist? That’s just sad. And it proves exactly how little conservatives actually know about modern feminism.
Most of the rest that have been named are liberal politicians that consider themselves feminists. But they are hardly the leading voices in the feminist movement.
Sandra Fluke was a good one, but what exactly makes her “insane?” I can understand disagreeing with her arguments, but even conservatives have to admit that the personal attacks on her were over the top. She’s also not considered a leader in the feminist movement.
What qualifies conservatives to condemn feminism so harshly when you can’t even name the most prominent leaders in the modern feminist movement?
Tina: “The world is not fair, it requires strong male leadership.”
I can’t imagine what it would be like growing up believing that my gender is inherently inferior and unfit to lead. And to have so internalized such bigotry that I still believe it in my sixties even though I run a business. What is that like, Tina?
Chris you’re awfully rough on Tina over such a minor thing. Why is that? On the other hand she’s been extraordinarily patient with you.
#18 Pie:
If there is a better argument for term limits other then Reid and Pelosi I’d be interested in hearing it.
Both are acting like they’re in the middle stages of Alzheimer’s or they’re just too stupid to understand what they are saying.
I’ll bet it was news to Clarence Thomas he’d become a white man after being called an “Uncle Tom” amongst others. And an even bigger surprise to the SC FULL of MEN when Roe vs. Wade was upheld that they had so much more wisdom and insight into the health and wellbeing of women and their unborn babies then the SC today has with three women on it.
I for one was really surprised when Pelosi said according to her understanding of the SC’s ruling diaphragms, which have been used by women for at least five decades as a birth control, is now being classified as an abortion causing device.
A comedian would have to pay big bucks to a writer to come up with stuff this good. And our freedom of speech makes it legal for them to use it for free. Good deal!
Want to bet the idiots that voted for Pelosi and Reid before will vote for them again, if they run?
TERM LIMITS….TERM LIMITS…TERM LIMITS TO ELIMINATE THE MENTALLY INCOMPENTENT AND INTELUCTUALLY INEPT.
To be fair and balanced I’m even going to pick on the GOP establishment. This is about the guy the GOP in DC supported with everything they had instead of backing the young conservative McDaniels.
Thad Cochran’s Latest Senior Moment: Gets Lost in Capitol:
“Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) literally got lost on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, The Hill reports. Cochran accidentally, while speaking with The Hill’s Cameron Joseph, went to the Senate Democrats’ luncheon instead of the Senate Republicans’ luncheon.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/07/08/Cochran-s-Latest-Senior-Moment-Gets-Lost-In-Capitol
Just a couple of examples of women stepping up (and thank God that they did).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Pitcher
http://oldnfo.org/2014/07/13/wwii-posters-10/
Believing that women are naturally unfit to lead is not “a minor thing,” Jack.
Chris you sure have a way of putting words in people’s mouth! Tina never said women were unfit! Tina merely made reference that it would be nice if we had some [good] male leaders in the world. That is something we definitely need. We’ve got some very [bad] male leaders in a number of countries making life miserable for their people and other countries. N. Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Egypt, Chad, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Congo, Russia, China, USA, …to name but a few.
Re #23: Major Boob will pick up any bit and take any angle, no matter how thin and specious, to attack Post Scripts. Like Blame The Victim and Epic Fail Boy it is his raison d’être. He no other reason to live.
Re #25: Yep. That is one of the Major Boob’s specialties.
Chris: “I can’t imagine what it would be like growing up believing that my gender is inherently inferior and unfit to lead.”
I can’t either!
Strong women I have admired include Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Condi Rice, and Elaine Chow. I also admire Mother Teresa and Rosa Parks. I think you’d have trouble implying that Anne Colter, Megan Kelly or Judge Jeanine were “inherently inferior and unfit to lead!Carly Fiorino is a woman I admire. My own mother and my father’s mother were very strong, independent women. My daughter is an extraordinarily strong woman as is my granddaughter! I admire many of the women I hear speak for the Independent Women’s Forum. Also take a gander at the link at #8 Peggy…those are young women I admire. I’m sure there are many others I could name.
I have yet to think of a person who flies the feminist flag that I would find fit to lead. Most are as air headed and ditsy as the current occupant with the need to control, direct, and organize every nuance of everyone’s lives for them and few real leadership qualities.
“And to have so internalized such bigotry that I still believe it in my sixties even though I run a business.”
What the hell is that supposed to mean? (Besides the fact that you can’t think outside your comfort zone…that little PC box you built in college)
“What is that like, Tina?”
You don’t have a clue about what I think or believe because you are not interested or even the least bit curious, despite your somewhat snide rhetorical question.
Jack that’s a remarkable list of unfit men. Many of the women in power today don’t offer much to admire either.
Isn’t it obvious that men and women who tend toward socialism and social engineering make a real mess of things?
All the greats could be placed on your list: Hitler, Lenin, Musolinni, Mao, Kamire Rouge, Castro, that ronery dude in N. Korea and his son, Chavez, Che, and others like Julius Nyerere, a guy Obama greatly admires:
It “takes a village” (Not a mother and father) and Obama and his hive of feminist women are working on having them all live here!
Then, Jack … what’s this?
“The feminist women that are actually running the WH have made a colossal mess of THE ENTIRE WORLD!”
I mean, putting aside for the moment our bewilderment over just exactly who or what she’s talking about, this would seem to betray a certain misogyny.
And then we can talk about the xenophobia. She’s going to be overrun by Tanzanian children? What on earth does she think they’re going to do to her? (Be black in her supermarket, I shouldn’t wonder.)
Libby: “…putting aside for the moment our bewilderment over just exactly who or what she’s talking about, this would seem to betray a certain misogyny.”
On the other hand it could be an insightful observation!
Real Clear Politics
I’d say her influence has defined the presidency.
National Review:
Libby your fantasies of xenophobia are quite vivid and emotional but so far off the mark as to be laughable. You might want to consider having those right brained creations erased before they give you night terrors.
The point of my post is the result of the radical progressive (Marxist) ruler:
If you were not so bent on finding xenophobes at every turn you would see that I deplore his leaving the nation “IN RUINS”…you idiot, the people are not thriving or happy!
It should make you sick; instead you and Obama want the same for the United States. (Barf)
So what horrible thing has Valerie done?
P.S.: Jon Stewart is a satirist.
Tina, I apologize; it seems I misinterpreted this line:
“The world is not fair, it requires strong male leadership.”
I concede that my previous interpretation of this line–that it meant women are incapable of leadership–was unfair, and I’m sorry.
That said, it does seem to at least imply that you believe men are at least MORE suited to leadership than women (otherwise you would have just said that the world “requires strong leadership,” no gender specification necessary). Is that an accurate interpretation of your statement? If not, can you see why many people would get that from what you wrote?
Libby Valerie Jarret is as responsible as the President for the incredible across the board failures of this government since it is well known that she is his policy maker/adviser he relies on most. Also the entire approach to governing, if you can call it that, is feminized…all heart, no brains. I have a great fondness for heart felt things but that is not the job of the leader of our country…or his adviser. Redistribution is something a soup kitchen does. Redistribution is something a group of ladies at the church might do after a church member’s house burns to the ground. The lottery picks winners and losers; presidents and advisers do not.
Tina: “Also the entire approach to governing, if you can call it that, is feminized…all heart, no brains.”
See, this is where you come across as implying that women are inherently inferior to men. To use “feminized” as a slur is bigoted against your own gender, Tina.
Here is a strong leader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GBdRPHVs04E
Chris I do understand the confusion, no apology required.
The problem is that we look at things a bit differently. I recognize, accept, and celebrate the differences inherent in men and women and don’t think in terms of superior or inferior.
I think, correct me if I’m wrong, that you are more likely to see men and women as the same except for faulty nurturing that has confused and caused us to become stuck in gender roles…which is why you inquire:
“…it does seem to at least imply that you believe men are at least MORE suited to leadership than women (otherwise you would have just said that the world “requires strong leadership,”
Generally speaking I do think men are more naturally suited to leadership. They are more likely to take on those positions too.
Having said that there are always exceptional people. My rule is that leaders will/should rise on the basis of desire, commitment, achievement, and merit rather than gender.
Having said that the problems in the world, and in our nation, require more than transfer programs, policy clinics, and peace summits. They require someone that understands gravity as a concept, won’t take any crap, and can lead us out of the wilderness. I think we are more likely to find those qualities in a man. Should a woman rise, she would have to possess qualities like Margaret Thatcher had to win my approval.
“…this is where you come across as implying that women are inherently inferior to men.”
See you puzzle me. The current President to me is feminized. He didn’t come to lead as President (Brains); he came to organize according to his empathies (Heart).
You seem to think that unless I pretend/believe that women and men are both equally prone to thinking in exactly the same way, to prioritizing in the same way, to having the same aspirations, that I can’t possibly think of them as equals. That just is not the case. I think men and women should be true to themselves. I don’t think that aspiring to leadership on a lie works out very well.
Feminized is a slur, and I meant it so, when it describes forces that have created imbalance (See quote above) It wasn’t directed at my gender(or the male gender) but at conditions we’ve created.
When men are shamed and bullied into locking up natural instincts and forced to think and project only empathy and softness (at least in public) an imbalance occurs… same for women who try to withhold emotions and act as if they were men…chaos usually follows.
It’s no accident that even after all of the pressures and changes in thinking and psychological theories men and women still naturally assume the positions they find most comfortable and rewarding: men in leadership and women as support. It’s too bad we don’t celebrate that more, IMHO. Men and women both have hearts and brains…both are needed but also need to be utilized naturally and appropriately.
I don’t expect you to agree. I only ask that you respect that I have a different perspective and opinion and refrain from assuming and accusing me of bigotry as if there is something wrong with me.
That is the thing that is most disconcerting to me about people who are on the left politically and socially…they don’t tolerate differences in thinking or perspective.
“Redistribution is something a soup kitchen does. Redistribution is something a group of ladies at the church might do after a church member’s house burns to the ground.”
There she is, going all nostalgic, for a society that never was. But what about communities wherein the church ladies buy a new dress for the bridge party, not potatoes for the soup kitchen? What about communities that don’t even have bridge-playing ladies to shirk their civic duty?
No, Tina. Your fantasies are just that … fantasies. Altruism has never served, which is why we have organized ourselves a government that pays people to get the job done … a little more thoroughly than has ever been done, ever, in human history.
And I’ve said it before … the fact that you object to this does not reflect well on your character.
Tina: “When men are shamed and bullied into locking up natural instincts and forced to think and project only empathy and softness (at least in public) an imbalance occurs…”
Can you be specific about what you mean here? In what ways have men been “shamed and bullied into locking up natural instincts?” What natural instincts are you referring to, and how have they been bullied into not expressing them?
And do you honestly believe that a pressing problem in our society is that men are showing too much empathy?
“It’s no accident that even after all of the pressures and changes in thinking and psychological theories men and women still naturally assume the positions they find most comfortable and rewarding: men in leadership and women as support.”
Tina, do you understand that this is the same logic that was used by opponents of women’s suffrage?
Libby: “There she is, going all nostalgic, for a society that never was.”
Liar!
“what about communities wherein the church ladies buy a new dress for the bridge party, not potatoes for the soup kitchen?”
Name one. Prove it. That’s an (bigoted) attitude of yours that has no basis in fact.
” What about communities that don’t even have bridge-playing ladies to shirk their civic duty?”
You mean the communities that are served by the Salvation Army and other charities? they would have more donations without all the government redistribution from a nation that is already very generous…and more of the people in those communities would work and have the means to help others in their communities themselves!
It is a LIE that the poor were getting poorer and the government had to step in to help. The numbers of poor were falling when the Great Society was enacted….and that downward trend abruptly stopped. It was enacted at the precise moment in time that opportunities in the black community were expanding. The legislation encouraged the break up of the family and dependency rather than self-reliance and the Democrats used the program to entice blacks to the party by claiming that Republicans didn’t care about them. You and your party are pathetic…rooting for failure as a means to Democrat power.
“Altruism has never served”
LIAR!
” a little more thoroughly than has ever been done, ever, in human history.”
LIAR!
Creating a permanent dependency class is not a measure of charitable success; it is a measure of devious political intent.
Creating social programs that results in the rise of single mothers and fatherless children, high rates of abortion, high rates of incarceration, high levels of drug and alcohol abuse is not indicative of success; it is an unholy travesty!
“…the fact that you object to this does not reflect well on your character.”
The fact that you advocate for more of this colossal failure does not reflect well on your character! I’ll put my character up against yours any day.
Timely reading: NYT
Freeman:
Mises
Tina: “You mean the communities that are served by the Salvation Army and other charities? they would have more donations without all the government redistribution from a nation that is already very generous…”
Do you have any factual evidence that taxation is diverting funds that would otherwise go to private charities?
“and more of the people in those communities would work”
Do you have any factual evidence that a weaker social safety net correlates with higher employment?
“It is a LIE that the poor were getting poorer and the government had to step in to help.”
I never said the poor were getting poorer prior to the Great Society.
“The numbers of poor were falling when the Great Society was enacted….and that downward trend abruptly stopped.”
It is true that the poverty rate was falling prior to the implementation of the Great Society, but it is not true that the downward trend “abruptly stopped” when the Great Society was enacted. On the contrary: the decline accelerated greatly. Between 1964 and 1973, this nation saw the largest drop in the poverty rate ever recorded.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/
Now, we can talk about what reforms are necessary to get back to the historic low poverty rate we saw in 1973, and I’m sure we’d disagree about what, exactly, should be done to get there.
But pretending that poverty was lower prior to the enactment of the Great Society is simply wrong. If the enactment of welfare programs were in and of itself causing greater poverty, then we should see higher poverty today then we did before the Great Society was enacted. That’s simple logic. So the fact that the poverty rate fell at an unprecedented rate only after 1964, when the War on Poverty started, should be enough to prove this conservative article of faith incorrect. Welfare, in and of itself, does not cause poverty to increase.
Obviously the fact that the poverty rate has fluctuated rapidly since 1973 shows that we have failed to live up to the promise of the Great Society. But instead of blaming the GS, we should look at why it was so successful in the first place, and what we can do to replicate that success. The poverty rate was nearly cut in half in the ten years following the enactment of the GS. Why aren’t we discussing what worked between 1964 and 1973?
Proof Chris?
Did you read the supporting material?
“On the contrary: the decline accelerated greatly. Between 1964 and 1973, this nation saw the largest drop in the poverty rate ever recorded.”
Not due to their own achievement, however.
Claiming programs improved the condition is phony.
“ut pretending that poverty was lower prior to the enactment of the Great Society ”
I didn’t say it was lower. I said it was declining naturally.
We will never know how well people would have done without government intervention.
We do know the destruction that has happened since and it is significant and was predicted.
“we should see higher poverty today then we did before the Great Society was enacted”
Poverty is defined differently now than it was then so it’s difficult to make an accurate comparison.
Others might want to get educated.
The truth is that thousands and thousands of able bodied people subsist on handouts when most of them could have been reliant on themselves and contributing to society, rather than taking from it, had the government not established a massive hammock.
The Great Society was never really successful because over time it debilitates more than it uplifts. Your attachment to it is bizarre given the real world evidence.
Programs can be best judged by the numbers of people who no longer need them. We have people who are second and third generation recipients and have learned that this is all life has to offer them. We have adults who never even learned to read in the (once) most prosperous nation on earth…disgraceful! We have broken families because our government makes being married to a working man unworkable to receiving “free” benefits.
The only reforms I’d be interested in are those that encourage independence and self sufficiency. And if we don’t break the hold the teachers unions have on education poor kids are doomed.
Chris: “Tina, do you understand that this is the same logic that was used by opponents of women’s suffrage?”
Ask me if I care.
You still don’t get it and I don’t have the time.
Tina: “Not due to their own achievement, however.”
What is this supposed to mean?
Are you saying that it does not matter to you whether the Great Society actually reduced poverty or not, because the people who used welfare programs to lift themselves out of poverty didn’t earn it?
Because…wow. I suppose it’s nice of you to admit that you don’t actually care about what works, but what’s satisfying to your Calvinist ideology. It’s monstrous, but at least it’s more honest then your previous claims that welfare actually increases poverty.
“Claiming programs improved the condition is phony.”
Aaaaand we’re back to blatant dishonesty! The government programs DID improve economic conditions, as you just (nearly) admitted. What’s phony is your complete dismissal of factual evidence every time you don’t like the conclusions.
“I didn’t say it was lower. I said it was declining naturally.”
Yes, and the decline was much faster after the GS was enacted.
“We do know the destruction that has happened since and it is significant and was predicted.”
What “destruction?” I need numbers, Tina. Your gut isn’t good enough for me. The poverty rate isn’t higher. The crime rate isn’t either:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
So when you go on about the “destruction” to society since the ’60s, you really just sound like a cranky lady telling kids to get off her lawn.
“Poverty is defined differently now than it was then so it’s difficult to make an accurate comparison.”
No, actually, it’s been defined the same way since the 1960s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Two_official_measures_of_poverty
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm
https://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/methodology/ombdir14.html
“Others might want to get educated.”
The author at that link completely ignores the massive drop in the poverty rate in the decade after the enactment of the Great Society, despite it being crystal clear on his graph. He also ignores that the previous (smaller) drop was likely due to the post-war boom, and that since the records only go back to five years before the GS there’s not nearly enough data to support his conclusion that the GS is responsible for high poverty rates (the graph shows more evidence AGAINST that position). Basically none of his conclusions are backed up by the evidence he provides–it’s the definition of jumping to conclusions.
If this is what you view as “getting educated” then it’s no wonder you’re so uninformed. You actually said the other day that there is no reason to compare the wealth of different groups in order to understand a nation’s economy! There’s not an economist who wouldn’t get laughed out of the profession for saying such a thing.
You simply won’t accept any evidence that contradicts your narrative.
Chris: “…because the people who used welfare programs to lift themselves out of poverty didn’t earn it?”
I commend those who do use it to lift themselves from poverty and I have before. But NO they did not earn the money they were given. It wasn’t a loan they paid back so you can’t say that money was earned.
Is it possible for you to discuss this without personalizing it Chris?
The issue I’m talking about has nothing to do with people who lift themselves from poverty. It has to do with the ones that don’t, that are discouraged from doing so, and that experience generational poverty…it becomes an accepted way of life for the progeny of those on welfare.
I am dumbfounded by your nasty attitude when what I am looking for is a better way to serve the poor so that more have an opportunity to be lifted out of poverty.
Please avoid attempting to guess my religious beliefs. Persons who believe in personal responsibility are not likely to follow the teachings of Calvin who among other things didn’t accept the notion of free will. You are such an a$$at times
“The government programs DID improve economic conditions”
They improved living standards…not the recipients economic condition. Most of our poor citizens are supported very little in EVER improving their economic condition, starting with the lousy schools their kids often must attend and the Democrats absolute refusal to allow vouchers to parents.
” and the decline was much faster after the GS was enacted.”
Not according to the graph at the link I provided.
Destruction:
Have to go to work…I will continue there.
Reading; Destruction caused by Great Society
An older article but very well done is must reading for anyone who cares about poverty and minority communities. City Journal – The Black Family – 40 Years Later
More here, and here, and here.
Two things are important to economic success in America: 1. High school diploma, 2. Marriage
People in the poorest Communities, dependent on government assistance, stuck in lousy schools, and often living without fathers are doomed and welfare played a big part in creating that condition.
National Review:
Crime rates and gang stats also point to the break up of the black family and families in general.
Dr. David Coruth expresses what is needed for the black community at WordPress. It’s good advice for anyone stuck in poverty.
The New Black Magazine also shares great advice!
If none of that allows you to begin to consider how the structure of our poverty programs have had a negative effect on the economic well being of the poor and black people in particular, nothing will and I won’t waist any more of my time attempting to introduce you to historical changes that have been devastating.
Chris your childish lectures are laughable. They make you look contentiously narrow-minded and rigid.
One last recommendation:
Please Stop Helping Us,” by Jason L. Riley – Amazon:
“I commend those who do use it to lift themselves from poverty and I have before. But NO they did not earn the money they were given. It wasn’t a loan they paid back so you can’t say that money was earned.”
I never said the money WAS earned. We were discussing whether or not the poverty rate was lowered with the enactment of the Great Society programs. You initially claimed that it was not. Then, when your own sources proved that claim incorrect, you tried to change the topic to whether or not the people who were lifted out of poverty by welfare “earned” it or not.
So I asked you a question:
“Are you saying that it does not matter to you whether the Great Society actually reduced poverty or not, because the people who used welfare programs to lift themselves out of poverty didn’t earn it?”
Instead of answering this question, you only quoted the second part of it and again tried to make the issue over whether or not the poor earned their way out.
Why can’t you just answer the questions you’re asked? Why do you always feel the need to change the subject whenever you are presented with a question that makes you uncomfortable?
“Is it possible for you to discuss this without personalizing it Chris?”
No, and I see no reason why I shouldn’t personalize it. It’s a personal issue for millions of Americans. Your party’s constant dismissal of this fact is why so many view you as lacking empathy. It’s why my historically Christian conservative mother quit the Tea Party and finds your stance on the poor and immigrants disgusting and compassionless. Blame liberals for this all you want; the fact is that this perception is a result of your party’s own statements and behavior, and until you change the way you talk about these issues, the perception will never change.
“The issue I’m talking about has nothing to do with people who lift themselves from poverty. It has to do with the ones that don’t, that are discouraged from doing so, and that experience generational poverty…it becomes an accepted way of life for the progeny of those on welfare.
I am dumbfounded by your nasty attitude when what I am looking for is a better way to serve the poor so that more have an opportunity to be lifted out of poverty.”
My “nasty attitude” is due to the fact that your “better way” is in fact actively harmful to the poor. I acknowledge that there are people who abuse or get trapped in the system, but you act like this is the majority of welfare recipients. You support efforts to make slackers the “face” of food stamps, and you defend the statements of politicians that characterize nearly all people under the poverty line as lazy, irresponsible, and entitled. You support plans that would make severe cuts to food stamps and even aid to senior citizens (plans that would, of course, only kick in once you’ve already gotten your own benefits). You don’t support supplanting the loss of income that millions of workers would receive with anything practical, like a decent minimum wage or more bargaining power. You throw the baby out with the bathwater. Your rhetoric and the policies you support are harmful to the poor.
“Please avoid attempting to guess my religious beliefs. Persons who believe in personal responsibility are not likely to follow the teachings of Calvin who among other things didn’t accept the notion of free will. You are such an a$$at times”
Tina, calling your ideology Calvinist is not a guess at your religious beliefs, nor does it imply you follow all Calvinist teachings. But Calvinist ideology has had a large influence on American politics, especially among the right wing; surely you can’t deny that?
“They improved living standards…not the recipients economic condition.”
Yes, they did improve their economic condition. Cutting the poverty rate by half over ten years is an improvement in economic condition. You can’t possible disagree with this, can you?
Me: ” and the decline was much faster after the GS was enacted.”
Tina: “Not according to the graph at the link I provided.”
OK, I see the problem: You don’t know how to read a graph.
According to the graph you provided from Economics Junkie, from 1959 to 1964, the poverty rate fell from 18.5% to 15%. That’s a 3.5% decrease. Over the next period of five years–during which many welfare programs were enacted–the poverty rate fell from 15% to about 9.6%. That’s a 5.4% decrease. The next five year decrease is a bit smaller, with poverty falling from a high of 10% to a low of 8.8%, before going up slightly before the five years was up.
Unfortunately we don’t have reliable data about the poverty rate prior to 1959, so we can’t directly compare the ten years after the GS to the ten years prior. But you can clearly see that the decline in the five year period prior to the Great Society was smaller than the decline in the five year period after.
http://www.economicsjunkie.com/us-poverty-rate-how-the-great-society-programs-reversed-its-decline/
The assertions made on that blog unfortunately have very little connection to the actual data. The author asserts that welfare programs actually stopped the poverty rate from falling further than it would have, but there’s absolutely no evidence provided for that claim. The author ignores the fact that the decline after the GS was enacted was larger than decline prior, as well as the fact that poverty never went back to the levels seen prior to the GS.
Again, we should be looking at what went wrong in 1974, and what we can do to echo the success of the nine years after the GS was enacted. We cut poverty nearly in half in less than a decade! We can do it again, but first we as a society have to at least agree on the facts in front of us.
Short version of the article below:
Republican congressmen: Thank you for being here with us today, welfare recipient. Now get a job!
Welfare recipient: But…I already have a job.
Cogressmen: La la la la can’t hear you! JOB JOB JOB!
http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/19/how-to-not-listen-to-people-in-poverty/