Ron Paul Gets NO COVERAGE [Archive]

iris lily

1-20-12, 11:04am

The Republicans still see him as a freak candidate--not one to be taken seriously. Anyone think he'll run as a third-party candidate?

This Republican plans to join the Paul group at the March caucus. I think that his hard core followers are more freaks than he is. It is a tragedy that his message, which is so much common sense, is delivered by a candidate who is, essentially, not "Presidential" in demeanor and appearance. And that reminds me that the Paul campaign needs my donation, I've send money to 2 others, need to get a check out.

I'll vote for Romney in the general election when it's all said and done.

Alan

1-20-12, 11:24am

Ron Paul is an interesting fella. The hard core libertarians love him, while the moderate libertarians think he takes the basic libertarian philosophy a little too far. The result is that while he's respected by many as a lone voice for the cause, he's loved by few. Not mainstream enough for the majority, and the media thinks he's kinda goofy.

I don't think he'll run as a third-party candidate as that would limit his son's ability to carry a modified version of his torch in 2016 and beyond. As a third-party candidate, he'd draw away just enough support from the Republican voters to ensure a Democrat victory, which would be remembered for a long, long time by the very people Rand would otherwise appeal to in the future.

mtnlaurel

1-20-12, 12:14pm

One of my favorite John Stewart bits of the past year....
This is 'Old fake News' from this past August....

Favorite part "How did Ron Paul become like the 13th floor at a hotel?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM

ApatheticNoMore

1-20-12, 12:38pm

I think this is actually becoming pretty well documented, that Ron Paul is deliberately being ignored by the media. I mean it's becoming a provable case.

But in my mind the media has lost any credibility it might have had anyway (you need not wonder why). LIES LIES LIES.

Btw, I haven't investigated extensively but Buddy Roemer seems like some more sane version of Paul, with all Paul's good points and less of the crazy, but hey he's not even in the debates.

As for the rest: Romneyboma, who can even care much which one wins. They are like the same person, maybe they were switched at birth. Or maybe they were really manufactured in test tubes by a company designed to output bland corrupt evil say anything politicians, assembling them gene by gene. Maybe I can start a new form of birtherism with this ;). They don't have birth certificates because they don't have parents, they were manufactured in a Monsanto lab .... ;)

I will probably vote 3rd party in the general election when it comes down to Romeny or Obama. Hitler or Stalin, Hitler or Stalin, well a good case can be made for Hitler, he killed less people than Stalin, so he really is rationally the lesser of two evils, if I don't vote for Hitler even more people will be killed by Stalin and it will be my fault. So I can't really blame anyone for voting for Hitler. But nah I just can't bring MYSELF to do it.

And furthermore, while I might initially say Obama, I'm not even SURE who the lesser of two evils even is!!!! Obama may be a bit better on the environment and so on (very important issue but he's not much better at all), but his record on civil liberties is atrocious, Romney well he's the devil I don't know, and well that always seems appealing compared to the devil you do know. But considering the devils always grow even larger horns when they get in office and considering what authoritarian strains run in the Republican party (that don't run as strong in the Dem party BASE and still we get this) .... meh.

Gregg

1-20-12, 12:56pm

I think that since Ron Paul isn't really electable (for all the reasons listed above) the RNC would rather devote assets and energy to the eventual candidate and the mainstream media has no reason to attack him because he will end up being a non-issue without their help. If the Dems really wanted to mount a Sun Tzu worthy attack they would convince the liberal media that Ron Paul is worthy of every single minute of air time available. With that kind of following he might decide to go against conventional wisdom, announce as a third party candidate and split the Republican vote insuring an Obama victory. Fortunately the DNC brass tends to take a more standard approach.

ApatheticNoMore

1-20-12, 1:03pm

The Dems would lose some votes because of Paul too. Not necessarily because Dems will actually vote for Paul, although some are, but more because many of the issues Paul raises do NOT reflect favorably on Obama and actually actively lose Obama votes, even if it is just Obama voters staying home or voting Green (good people there) or what have you. Don't think the DNC doesn't know it also.

I don't think Paul will do it, as he is at heart a Republican, but I think a Paul third party run would be good for the country (and he would be a true lesser of 3 evils at that point). Someone has to speak for civil liberties and against the wars, and it sure as heck isn't going to be Romney or Obama. I like Paul on his push to audit the Fed too, although that stuff is never going to be a mainstream concern (but the amount of chicanery being run through the Fed is actually a significant influence on the world economy at this point imo).

Gregg

1-20-12, 1:22pm

I think Alan has it right. The main reason for Ron Paul to resist a third party candidacy is to keep the door as open as possible for Rand Paul in the future. As a purely practical matter Ron Paul is in his upper 70's so you wouldn't expect him to be actively seeking office much longer. Rand Paul isn't even 50 yet so getting him into a position for a later run makes sense.

catherine

1-20-12, 1:40pm

The Dems would lose some votes because of Paul too.

As a liberal-leaning independent, I've voted Democratic very consistently; however, Ron Paul really appeals to me, because of his common sense, as Iris Lilly said. I love the fact that he would only do "just cause" war, that he's against the death penalty, that he can make statements about the healthcare system having been a medical doctor. That he has the courage of his convictions which have been consistent for years, and he's not afraid to speak up.

I will most likely go Obama; but I'd really think about it if Paul by some miracle runs.

bae

1-20-12, 2:36pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uZeZnCuknh0

loosechickens

1-20-12, 2:56pm

doesn't happen often....but I agree with Alan. ;-)

Ron Paul is like that bright, but wonky uncle who has some off the wall ideas that he could never in a million years make work, and if he could, they would end up being disastrous because of unintended consequences, but also a streak of genuine common sense that makes you sit up and listen.

I respect him because he has maintained his convictions popular or not, stayed true to his vision of how government should be, whether it fit his party's partisan ideas or not, and I think he's probably one of the few truly honest people in there. I'm surprised sometimes at how many times I find myself agreeing with him.

I find myself agreeing with Newt Gingrich sometimes, too, but that doesn't mean I think he'd be a good President, and I'm afraid I'd feel about the same about Ron Paul, too.

As I've said, I am SURE there are far better quality candidates that the Republicans could have come up with than the group they have......whether they think President Obama is probably not beatable, so they aren't willing to risk a top quality candidate, or what.....I'd be embarassed were I still a Republican, at what I would be being asked to choose from.

I respect Ron Paul.....which is more than I can say for any of the rest of that field.

Rogar

1-20-12, 3:02pm

Ron Paul is getting some momentum among my associates. To me he makes some sense on NDAA 2012, per Bae's post, and he wants to bring our all our troops home. He seems like the only candidate who hasn't sold out to his party or big money. It would be nice to get more attention to these things through the media.

Unfortunately, he thinks social security, medicaid, and medicare are unconstitutional and wants to get rid of the EPA. My take is that a vote for Ron will never be any more than a protest vote. Which maybe the media recognizes. He's just a little too far out there. Plus, he needs to grow his hair a bit and get a better hair doo to stand a chance.

heydude

1-20-12, 3:21pm

i do like how Ron Paul gets support from the very right and the very left.

ApatheticNoMore

1-20-12, 3:30pm

Ron Paul is like that bright, but wonky uncle who has some off the wall ideas that he could never in a million years make work, and if he could, they would end up being disastrous because of unintended consequences, but also a streak of genuine common sense that makes you sit up and listen.

Yes, there are ideas of Paul's that are unlikely to ever work. But I honestly don't think we can even travel further down the road of disasterous policy with unintended consequenses than the one we are already on. To quote a crazy person (Wilhelm Reich): "you have locked all the lunatics in asylums and sane people now run the world" (and look at what a world you have!).

Now look in an ideal world if we are going to have to get a libertarian in the white house I'd want one who truely gets environmental issues, gets them to the core (maybe bae? :)). But this world is so far from ideal that yes Paul looks good and no we aren't going to get any kind of libertarian in the white house, or even someone (like say any sane liberal) who believes in DUE PROCESS!!!!

Besides even a Paul presidency (and I know fat chance of that), would still need cooperation with congress to do anything. It wouldn't be dictator Paul, and frankly I think Paul is the most unlikely of anyone to abuse executive priviledge, but that's just my speculation and could be wrong if he got in office.

As I've said, I am SURE there are far better quality candidates that the Republicans could have come up with than the group they have......

Maybe, Buddy Roemer?

whether they think President Obama is probably not beatable, so they aren't willing to risk a top quality candidate, or what.....

I think they think they have a good chance of beating Obama with a mediocre candidate (ie Mitt Romney) and so ... And I don't even think this is necessarily wrong as a bet. Obama is far from assured the presidency. And whoever wins is just going to get the blame for further economic collapse anyway (even though that is one issue on which the president actually has minimal control).

My take is that a vote for Ron will never be any more than a protest vote.

And I have never seen any argument that has yet convinced me that a protest vote is any less rational than a "lesser of two evils" vote. Ok the Hitler and Stalin analogies above may have been a little reductio ad absurdum (reductio on the "lesser of two evils" argument). And keep in mind in such a scenario of Hitler v Stalin "lesser of two evils" could be argued just like I did AND STILL be rational.

But ok 2012 U.S. reality, we don't literally have people being gassed in concentration camps yet and well I know it. But we are fast reaching a point where the two mainstream candidates are so evil and so very similar in their evil that I don't want to make the choice for either (I mean the president going around saying he can kill whomever he wants with no due process - how low do you have to go?).

Zoebird

1-20-12, 3:41pm

Sad thing is, Ron Paul actually has a lot of good ideas. Like austrian economics.

catherine

1-22-12, 8:15am

Take a look at the CNN front page coverage of the SC primary. Ron Paul isn't on the list of candidates and he actually did better than Santorum. What's with that???? http://www.cnn.com/

My son showed me this funny Jon Stewart piece: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier

ApatheticNoMore

1-22-12, 2:20pm

Take a look at the CNN front page coverage of the SC primary. Ron Paul isn't on the list of candidates and he actually did better than Santorum. What's with that???? http://www.cnn.com/

1) CNN censors. No coverage of NDAA. I searched their site for "National Defense Authorization Act" to check my perception. Only 2 offhand mentions in stories about other things, the mentions neither inform nor would lead anyone to do other research, plus one cnn blog about the issue (not a news article a fricken blog!). It may well be the case the government shut the mainstream media up about this. If you want to be informed you have to get your news from independent media and foreign media (ideally from those countries that are not allies).

2) Yes again I'm pretty convinced Paul is not being given fair coverage (but this isn't some kind of unprovable thing, this is documentable for yourself - keep track of Paul's election totals and compare them with what appears in the media). I haven't done so myself (though I may start), but have just relied on what I regard as reliable reporting. Who knows what else is going on? Troubles with the election ballot counting in Iowa. Did the republican party manipulate it's own primary? I don't know, if things were totally manipulated Paul wouldn't get even the strong showing he did, but maybe he won and the election was thrown. The ballots were counted in secret for the first time, right? Maybe everyone of us that is skeptical should start doing our own exit polling standing outside our polls.

Well election throwing, this is getting pretty heavy into conspiratorial territory, isn't media manipulation enough? Yes, but the whole NDAA business, not just the law itself (hey another evil new law, what do you know?) but MUCH more so what seemed to be (and definitely was for CNN) a mainstream media blackout, has me questioning everything these days. If something like that can be passed AND blacked out .... WHAT ELSE IS REALLY GOING ON? Because things are not how I assumed they were. I assumed that the media would cover important issues. I didn't necessarily assume the media was unbiased, I just assumed they weren't colluding in government censorship, least of all government censorship to slip in a police state. And now I don't.

So it has me questioning the legitimacy of our political system and media (plus sometimes the basic SANITY of the society I live in if I think people actually know and don't even care about these issues - if there was something wrong with the German psych that enabled the Nazis what the heck is wrong with the American psyche?).

The NDAA business is that which once seen can't be unseen. Now of course, it doesn't follow that all conspiracies are now true. Because then pretty soon you are believing in anything at all. Yes, maybe the president really is a space lizard. ;) But I do know the narrative I was taught about how the media and political system works was a lie (and I thought I was one of the skeptical ones). The NDAA was mostly cooked up in closed door committees by the way (so says the ACLU), and hey signed on New Years Eve. Nothing suspicious going on at all ....

redfox

1-22-12, 2:56pm

His sexist & xenophobic comments render him a completely anachronistic candidate.

ApatheticNoMore

1-22-12, 3:57pm

Are you saying he can't win? (even assuming the most legitimate election in the world). That may well be. Are you saying he shouldn't win? Well you know anyone who wants to further enforce the border alone at this point is dangerous. That border is going to be keeping Americans in pretty soon. Or if that sounds very far fetched and crazy at least let's put it: it is a very statist (and not the better parts of the state either!) and authoritarian maneuver at a point where the government is getting dangerous IMO.

Otherwise do many people really agree with rascist newsletters and so on? Well maybe some do, but it is probably not majority opinion among Paul supporters or anyone else (libertarianism per se, whatever else it may be, is mostly NOT racist, and libertarians are likely a decent part of Paul's base). But racist newsletters though evil, are not on the scale of evil of say many of the policies coming out of our current government.

ApatheticNoMore

1-22-12, 4:54pm

By the way, political compass:

http://politicalcompass.org

Similar to the Nolan chart. I originally thought that whole mental model was just some libertarian propaganda. But no, now I see it not only legitimizes right libertarianism, not as being right necessarily, but as an ideology that actually has a place on a compass, but also is the mental model to explain the whole phenomena of Obama, civil liberties and the left.

Like how can people defend Obama's civil liberties abuses? Are they just partisans, tribalists, stuck in cognitive dissonance after voting and campaigned for the guy (when nobody knew he would be this bad, worse that Bush even. So they need to get over their cognitive dissonance then, they are forgiven already, noone knew he would be *this* bad). Yea all of that has some truth, partisanship, tribalism, cognitive dissonance, but some probably never were on the "libertarian" (as defined by the compass) left many assumed was the Dem base to begin with. They never were civil libertarians, they were left authoritarians (of course if they are very far left you would think they could see Obama isn't left either - he's a corporatist - though given the current political system that is hard to avoid).

My scores:
Economic Left/Right: -0.25 (the negative scores indicates left, but not very far so)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05 (the negative scores indicate anti-authoritarian).

So what's an anti-authoritarian, economic left leaning moderate like me to do, when crazy and in my opinion very dangerous authoritarians run the country? And Ron Paul is at least in some ways anti-authoritarian.

bae

1-22-12, 5:03pm

I wonder how Ron Paul's racist newsletters would stack up against Obama's record?

redfox

1-22-12, 7:00pm

I believe that racism & xenophobia are the most profound evils our species is capable of. I reject any candidate who utters racist words, concepts, policies, etc.

Alan

1-22-12, 7:09pm

I believe that racism & xenophobia are the most profound evils our species is capable of. I reject any candidate who utters racist words, concepts, policies, etc.
What about those who support welfare and minimum wage laws? Two governmental acts of "kindness" that have done more to perpetuate poverty, destroy families and keep young black men from gainful employment, than any candidates words could possibly do.

ApatheticNoMore

1-22-12, 7:19pm

I believe that racism & xenophobia are the most profound evils our species is capable of. I reject any candidate who utters racist words, concepts, policies, etc.

Guess I believe *war* is one of the most profound evils our species is capable of. I reject any candidate who utters pro-war words, concepts or policies (?)

I don't know, it does actually seem to boil down to that.

If being pro-war was as taboo as being rascist, I don't know, we might have a country worth living in?

redfox

1-22-12, 7:58pm

What about those who support welfare and minimum wage laws? Two governmental acts of "kindness" that have done more to perpetuate poverty, destroy families and keep young black men from gainful employment, than any candidates words could possibly do.

It seems that you & I have very divergent perspectives about the value and impact of public assistance. I'd be interested to hear more about how you came to the conclusions you stated about the effects of public assistance, if you're willing to share. I respect our ideological differences, and always welcome an oportunity to learn from you.

Alan

1-22-12, 8:17pm

I'd be interested to hear more about how you came to the conclusions you stated about the effects of public assistance, if you're willing to share.
It may help you understand if you familiarized yourself with the collected works of economists & scholars Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.

An archive of Mr. Williams articles are linked here: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp
Mr. Sowell's works can be reviewed here: http://www.tsowell.com/

ApatheticNoMore

1-22-12, 8:46pm

By the way bae's video of Ron Paul introducing a bill to repeal parts of the NDAA. Yes he did. But there is also a bill already introduced that seems to do this and go even further (the Due Process Guarantee act since it explicitly says it is clarifying not just NDAA but the AUMF). Unlike Pauls bill it has a lot of cosponsors - over 40 house members, ALL democrats (what Dems the only one's who believe in the bill of rights?). So I know Ron Paul is campaigning but he probably really needs to work with the 40 or so Dems on this and not just be out there being the lone Ron Paul. Maybe we need both bills. I think passing both might put the final nail in this. Or we can just live without the rule of law I guess. That seems to be the way things are going. Hey let's pretend we live in a free country (they aren't disappearing us yet).

bae

1-22-12, 8:57pm

Apathetic - yes, I think this has been a problem with Paul's political career all along. He introduces a lot of bills, by himself, often with titles like "The You All Are Socialist Scum Act of 2012", and they never go anywhere.

I think he's made a quite profitable political career out of being the odd man out.

And I don't think he has a chance of being elected President, even though I often agree with much of what he says, I don't think he's the man for the job.

Tenngal

1-22-12, 10:21pm

yes I have noticed. Interested in learning more about him, but how? What is it that the Republicans don't like?

redfox

1-23-12, 12:12am

It may help you understand if you familiarized yourself with the collected works of economists & scholars Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell.

An archive of Mr. Williams articles are linked here: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams1.asp
Mr. Sowell's works can be reviewed here: http://www.tsowell.com/

Alan, I'm sorry to say that I am quite unlikely to research the writings & theories of these scholars. I'd much prefer to hear your thinking in your voice, if you're willing.
Thanks!
~Rebecca

loosechickens

1-23-12, 12:25am

Alan

1-23-12, 9:37am

Alan, I'm sorry to say that I am quite unlikely to research the writings & theories of these scholars. I'd much prefer to hear your thinking in your voice, if you're willing.
Thanks!
~Rebecca
My thinking revolves around certain facts being incontrovertible.

On minimum wage laws, last year two labor economists, Professors William Even (Miami University of Ohio) and David Macpherson (Trinity University), released a study for the Washington, D.C.-based Employment Policies Institute titled “Unequal Harm: Racial Disparities in the Employment Consequences of Minimum Wage Increases.”

During the peak of our recent recession, the unemployment rate for young adults (16 to 24 years of age) as a whole rose to above 27 percent. The unemployment rate for black young adults was almost 50 percent, but for young black males, it was 55 percent.
Among the white males, the authors find that “each 10 percent increase in a state or federal minimum wage has decreased employment by 2.5 percent; for Hispanic males, the figure is 1.2 percent.
“But among black males in this group, each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage decreased employment by 6.5 percent.”
The authors go on to say, “The effect is similar for hours worked: each 10 percent increase reduces hours worked by 3 percent among white males, 1.7 percent for Hispanic males, and 6.6 percent for black males.”

Imagine that a worker’s skill level is such that he can only contribute $5 worth of value per hour to the employer’s output, but the employer must pay him a minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, plus mandated fringes. Hiring such a worker is a losing economic proposition. If the employer could pay that low-skilled worker the value of his skills, he would at least have a job and a chance to upgrade his skill and earn more in the future.

Minimum wage laws have massive political support. That means that many young black males will remain a part of America’s permanent underclass with crime, drugs and prison as their future.

This trend easily segue's into the effect the welfare state has on low income groups. Over the last several generations, we've seen the government interject itself into the family structure by acting as an economic surrogate in single parent households, effectively incentivizing a new status quo. Studies have shown that the most direct path out of poverty is to be graced with a two parent household and a loving family, something our current system inadvertently discourages.

So, to get back to my original point, which would you prefer, a politican who makes an in-sensitive comment or one who actively promotes the known outcomes associated with governmental intervention?

Alan

1-23-12, 9:51am

I'm sure Thomas Sowell is a favorite of yours, Alan. I DO often think of one quote of his when I see the degree of "tizziness" that President Obama can generate among Republicans........a very different construct than I'm sure he meant, but appropriate, nonetheless....... JMHO

“It’s amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites. ”
― Thomas Sowell
Speaking of appropriateness, and even in the proper context of this turn in the discussion, here's another quote from Dr Sowell:

"The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help."” ~ Thomas Sowell

ApatheticNoMore

1-23-12, 10:43am

This trend easily segue's into the effect the welfare state has on low income groups. Over the last several generations, we've seen the government interject itself into the family structure by acting as an economic surrogate in single parent households, effectively incentivizing a new status quo. Studies have shown that the most direct path out of poverty is to be graced with a two parent household and a loving family, something our current system inadvertently discourages.

So you just change the incentive structure and leave welfare alone really (ie you get the same benefits married as you would single). Anyway, loving families are so nice and all, but in reality so many families aren't loving anyway, that it is often better to leave an abusive partner if it comes to that. Anyway not much remains of actual AFDC welfare anyway at this point I don't think (after Clinton's changes).

Alan

1-23-12, 11:31am

So you just change the incentive structure and leave welfare alone really (ie you get the same benefits married as you would single). Anyway, loving families are so nice and all, but in reality so many families aren't loving anyway, that it is often better to leave an abusive partner if it comes to that. Anyway not much remains of actual AFDC welfare anyway at this point I don't think (after Clinton's changes).

But the damage has already been done, and you'd have a hard time convincing me that 1/2 to 2/3 of children in specific racial groups are better off in a one parent houshold.

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the percentage of children in single parent households as of 2010:

Non-Hispanic White: 24%
Black or African American: 66%
American Indian: 52%
Asian and Pacific Islander: 16%
Hispanic or Latino: 41%
Total: 34%

Source: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107

creaker

1-23-12, 11:49am

But the damage has already been done, and you'd have a hard time convincing me that 1/2 to 2/3 of children in specific racial groups are better off in a one parent houshold.

According to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the percentage of children in single parent households as of 2010:

Non-Hispanic White: 24%
Black or African American: 66%
American Indian: 52%
Asian and Pacific Islander: 16%
Hispanic or Latino: 41%
Total: 34%

Source: http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107

So how do you fix something like that - legislate 2 parent loving households? Remove any economic floor these children may have?

Alan

1-23-12, 11:56am

So how do you fix something like that - legislate 2 parent loving households? Remove any economic floor these children may have?
In my mind, legislation is never the answer. The situation is much more likely to resolve itself in the absence of additional governmental social engineering. That's the primary source of the problem.

creaker

1-23-12, 12:06pm

In my mind, legislation is never the answer. The situation is much more likely to resolve itself in the absence of additional governmental social engineering. That's the primary source of the problem.

So yank the floor out. Which in itself would require legislation.

rosebud

1-23-12, 12:26pm

First of all, people of all races get welfare and food stamps. So infusing race into the issue of entitlements is a right wing tactic. It capitalizes on racism and tribalism in order to attack social welfare programs that conservatives just don't like. So why are we discussing African-American dependency and not Appalachia? No Republican candidate will ever discuss the culture of dependency in Appalachia. Simply because linking welfare with disliked groups like blacks and illegal immigrants magnifies the resonance of those issues with racial animosity.

Second, to ignore the legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism in this country while decrying black dependency is either ignorant disengenuous or racist in itself.

So no. Welfare in and of itself cannot explain the overall economic disadvantages faced by the black community. Ongoing studies continue to demonstrate that black people have the additional burden of racism as they try to get housing and jobs.

How on earth would doing away with the minimum wage help people attain more economic independence. People can hardly survive on minimum wage as it is. If we had no minimum wage more people would need more government benefits not less. So in essence once again society subsidizes business by taking care of workers so that they can have a low cost workforce.

I would suggest you start reading the Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman. He makes short shrift of the free market fantasies set forth by Sowell and company.

ApatheticNoMore

1-23-12, 12:42pm

Actually I don't deny there is merit in the critique of some of the damage done by a few Great Society programs. But saying the only solution is eliminating them entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater is it not?

And I think *some* liberal thought also acknowledged the merit of the critique, but probably doesn't take such an ideological "baby out with the bathwater" approach. What was Monyhans solution afterall, baby out with the bathwater? And this is assuming it is actual liberal THOUGHT on the matter you are dealing with, and a hard line does need to be drawn between thought (usually done by intellectuals, those working in the field etc.) and actually trying to work on the problem (even when the ideas are wrong), and mere campaign slogans about peace and love, or law and order or what have you (done by politicians and pure BSery not at all worthy of the term "thought").

Besides it is the year 2012, to what extend does AFDC even exist anymore? And to what extent are say 80's criticiques of it's value (probably the date of the Sowell critiques) even of value anymore considering the program was mostly gutted anyway?

bae

1-23-12, 12:48pm

See also:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0101.pdf

Go to the bottom, Table 101 on abortion rate by race. Notice the differences...

Alan

1-23-12, 1:03pm

First of all, people of all races get welfare and food stamps. That's why I prefaced my comments with "low income", the racial characteristics came out in the statistics.

Second, to ignore the legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism in this country while decrying black dependency is either ignorant disengenuous or racist in itself.
And that's the real reason no one wants to honestly discuss the problem. Ad homenim attacks are sure to follow.

creaker

1-23-12, 3:56pm

That's why I prefaced my comments with "low income", the racial characteristics came out in the statistics.

And that's the real reason no one wants to honestly discuss the problem. Ad homenim attacks are sure to follow.

If you say so - but I was curious as to how knocking out government supports would correct the problem.

Alan

1-23-12, 4:27pm

If you say so - but I was curious as to how knocking out government supports would correct the problem.
The answer isn't so much in "knocking out government supports", as much as it is in actually allowing past reform efforts to succeed. The welfare reform act of the 90's was mostly a change in the way the federal government allocated funds to the states for use in welfare payments. Prior to reform, if states wanted more money to increase their dependency rolls, the feds gave it to them, which incentivized the states to add more people. Under the Welfare Reform Act's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the states were given a set amount of money which must then be managed responsibly. The result was a huge success for many previous welfare recepients as they were prompted to rise to the occassion and bring themselves out of poverty.

The stimulus bills of 2008 and 2009 pretty much destroyed the previous reform efforts by targeting funds to states in such a way that the TANF program was ignored, further incentivizing individuals and the states to increase the numbers of people on welfare, at least through February 2012. It will be interesting to see if it is extended further as it's deadline approaches. I'm betting it will since it's easier to get people back on the government teat during difficult economic times and public support for "helping" others is at it's highest.