- I want my charity to help the poor. What dos that have to do with taxes?
- You don't think that your taxes help the poor?
Guy Who Confronts Food Stamp Muffs Who Buy Lottery Tickets Is A Goddamn American Hero
- Show me in the bible where it says that in order to be a Christian, I have to pay taxes so that the gov can help the poor.
I know I'm supposed to do it myself. Where is the part where Jesus is commanding me to give to a middle man?
- So you're saying that you DONT believe that your tax dollars should help the poor?
Do you cruise parking lots and jack steaks out of people's baskets?
- I'm asking where is the verse that says that paying taxes is one of the Christian values? "If you don't believe what I made up then you aren't a Christian!"
- You seem to be stuck on your Libertarian limited Government argument and ignoring that actual point.
If you don't believe in the society in which we live with a representative government and the laws that were passed in order to help out those in need because you feel as if your hard earned tax dollars shouldn't go to help out anybody but you and if you want to help somebody then you will give them money as you see fit and you don't need and representative government handing out your money to help poor people for you...move your happy ass to Kuwait...oh...never mind.
- You seem to be stuck on confusing taxes with Christian values like the former president character did in that there meme.
Do I have any choice at all in what is being done with the pool of collected taxes? What if the "helping the poor" programs are actually inefficient and wasteful? If I'd rather pool portions of my disposable income with like minds in my neighborhood community, to help local poor in my area, instead of tossing it into the bureaucratic machine, that means I somehow don't want a country based on Christian values? That is absurd.
- I'm a citizen of the USA. I am the country. WE are the country. Not the suited bureaucrats who have unlimited access to the tax funds.
- No I'm not.
I'm comparing selfish fucktards who want to police what poor people buy with their food stamp cards because poor people have been demonized by rich people as parasites and ignoring the fact that 80% of people on food stamps are working and if people who want to snatch the steaks out of people's baskets because they feel like the government has wasted their tax money should fuck all the way off.
- For some reason the word "Tax" makes your fists ball up by themselves. I don't know why. It shouldn't.
- Okay, so you posted the meme in response to the jackasses in the vid clip. I understand. But I was only responding to what the former president character actually said. I didn't know it was a sneak attack post against a very specific incident. It wasn't me!#dontTazeMeBro
- Those stereotypes of "suited bureaucrats" is Republican talking point rhetoric Muhammad.
They aren't BORN with government jobs.
WE THE PEOPLE elect them and they appoint people in certain positions.
If WE THE PEOPLE elect different people then those people appoint different people. It isn't magic. It's how our system works.
- No, I don't have a prob with taxes. I have a prob with someone telling me I don't get to say i'm a Christian unless I really, really, really want some suits in Washington D.C. to figure out how to "help the poor" by continuing the trend of widening the economic gap between the country's poor and middle class.
- I believe in voting and the election process. You're talking to someone else.
"Suited bureaucrat" isn’t a stereotype since the suit IS the official political uniform of the day, and they do bureaucrat it up over there. lol
- Well if you were actually responding to what the President said then you would see that he didn't say shit about you calling yourself a Christian. "A Nation Based on Christian values" is what it said.
There was NOTHING wrong with what was said.
- How does the government widen the gap between the poor and middle class?
- I swear if you say that welfare "grooms a culture of dependency that hold poor people back" Thomas Sowell bullshit...
- "You don't want a nation based on Christian values if you don't want politicians to swim in the tax coffers like Uncle Scrooge Mcduck."
- Told you that you were stuck in that anti tax Libertarian mindset.
Wrong argument for this discussion.
- Giving a portion of my disposable income to the gov in order for them to help the poor, instead of just doing it myself, isn't having a nation based on Christian values. Just doing it myself is having a nation based on Christian values.
- I don't have an anti-tax mindset. I have an anti-mismanaging funds telling me you're helping folk mindset.
- The government widens the gap by continuing to put broken programs in place that actually don't help the poor the way they are supposed to, make their problems worse, run on partisan talking points promising to continue those same broken programs, and taxing me so they can pay for them.
No process improvement efforts, no internal root cause analysis... just berating me for being hesitant to give those people my money.
- I know, you're going to interpret that as "Muhammad said he hates all taxes and wants anarchy!"
- That's sounds great.
So let's look at it practically.
Take the amount that you pay in taxes last year.
I the average American spends about 25% of their income in taxes so if you made $40,000 then you spent $10,000 in taxes.
Federal spending on welfare is 10% so out of your $10,000 in taxes $1000 went toward welfare and helping the poor.
The government took your $1000 and bought every school lunch, housing, foodstamp card, head start program, daycare, unemployment check, and social service emergency assistance program in the entire country...and you think that if you only had your $1000 back...you could do better?
- I don't understand your caricature of Sowell.
- That's ok Kirb. You don't have to. I do. That's what's important.
- Now I don't understand the Kirb reference considering I addressed every point and saved the Sowell one for last.
Are YOU doing a Neil P impression?
- Your just mad because you worship the Moon God.
- Sowell's thing wasn't about the "culture of dependency," but the part about specific welfare programs that only payout if there is no father in the home. That concept was the kiss of death for the black community.
- LEAVE THE MOON GOD ALONE, ASSHOLE!!!
- Families with a father in the home can STILL qualify for welfare assistance. It only goes by the total income no the home.
That didn't break the damn black family.
If you wanted to be there... A government check wasn't going to stop you.
Don't drink the Kool aide.
- I don't have a problem going through those listed "practical" items, auditing them to see if they are working the way they were envisioned to, improving them if they are archaic and broken, keeping the proven ones, and discarding the broken ones.
- I know the POTUS wouldn't have a problem doing it, but he doesn't believe in micromanaging the states.
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "If you wanted to be there..."
I know, I'm talking about the problem child statistics. The trends of juvenile delinquency since the implementation of those types of programs.
I don't have a problem with efficient programming designed to actually help. I don't believe that the systems we've had in place in these last 50 something years have been that.
- That's because, contrary to popular belief, the Federal government isn't nearly big enough to micromanage the states. If it grew large enough to micromanage the states then your taxes would go up by a factor of 10 easily.
"Big Government" is another bullshit republican talking point used to scare the bunker folks into voting loyalty.
- That wasn't a big gov comment. It was a "I expect Obama to care about efficiency under his watch, but wouldn't expect him to want to force people to do their jobs"
- You seem to still be stuck on your "Muhammad is ALLL about the classic GOP/Libertarian talking points" thing.
- Juvenile delinquency is a very complex problem with MANY variables.
Despite all of the noise from the partisan political billshit (of which Thomas Sowell is a major contributor)
Juvenile delinquency has gone DOWN despite the fact that welfare spending has been pretty consistent and even peeked during the economy crash of 2008.
Trends in Juvenile Violence – US Department of Justice 1996
Now the number CLEARLY state that juvenile delinquency started trending up at an astronomical rate starting in the early 1980's through the 1990's.
Welfare has been steady long before to long after but crack was developed and sold during that time. Followed by the privatization of prisons. Followed by minimum sentencing for non violent drug crimes.
Ronald Reagan sold drugs in the inner cities to fund his contra war and then declared a war on drugs so he could fill up his private prisons and THAT is what crushed millions of black families from BOTH sides.
Welfare being the problem is a myth perpetuated by republicans to help demonize us and Thomas Sowell tried to tie it to our very morality.
Did you know that there is a limit of 5 years to be on welfare?
Culture of perpetual dependency is a myth used to help promote the thought that we are parasites on society hell bent to use hard working people's hard earned tax dollars and steal and our lives are worthless.
They use the demonization of poor black people just like they used "Birth of a Nation" after slavery. So when they show pictures of cops killing you instantly 50% of the country says a collective, "Good riddance!"
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "That didn't break the damn black family."
The trends of increased juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancies, and a generation of males growing up avoiding committed relationships... all in the lower class black community... run parallel to the implementation and maintenance of those types of programs in the last 50 years. The strength of the family unit was the poor's greatest tool during the jim crow era. I think it was deliberately taken from them myself, so they could sneak slavery back in: 1) isolate the poor by luring away the middle class with "integration" 2) break up the poor families with money schemes increasing delinquency rates 3) increase alcohol/drugs in poor communities 4) Negotiate lucrative free gov subsidy deals for prisons and prison contractors 5) fuck black people
- Again that's NOT what the actual numbers say.
Trends in Juvenile Violence – US Department of Justice 1996
- I don't hold onto that "culture of dependency" thing. It isn't part of my argument.
I believe a specific type of welfare program was absolutely used as a tool to break up the poor black families.
- Which welfare program was that??
- Juvenile delinquency is WAAAAY down and has been going down since the 1990's.
Your theory about welfare being a major factor is seriously flawed.
Juvenile Offenders and Victims – 2014 National Report
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Which welfare program was that??"
This was the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, in effect from 1935 (when it was limited strictly to widows & orphans) to 1996.
It was designed to give payouts to households that didn't have an adult male living there, creating a "creeping" culture in which men didn't want to be there, and weren't encouraged to. Young boys grew up thinking like that, and this became the new normal in the poor community.
- I have to jump through so many hoops to open your pdfs...
How come you can't also post a screen capture of the graph you want to highlight or whatever?
- Because I'm a firm believer in complete data.
- So put this AFDC program in practical terms for me.
You love your wife/babies momma/ girlfriend but you work at McDonalds and you make the minimum wage at 40hours a week and you qualify for the ADC program. She could get MORE if you didn't live there on paper so she says that she is a single parent...why aren't you in the house? Because she might have a scheduled appointment with her worker?
I call bullshit!
- It functioned with gov workers popping up and trying to catch her with a man in there, with both scheduled and surprise visits... making sure they hired the biggest assholes in the world to do it. Like those social workers that came by the house after Malcolm X's dad was killed.
- It was
bullshit. The end goal was to destroy that family.
- I'm good with the complete data, I just have to play the live action version of Atari's Pitfall®
to download those pdfs. I'm just saying, how about post the screen capture WITH the pdf link. Thanks btw.
- So your graphs show that the increasing juvenile delinquency has been dropping down from record highs, but are still high, and are still high in low income black communities. I don't see how that disproves my contention that welfare was one of the tools that led to the current problems in the poor black community, outside of a specific narrowly focused timeline.
- Muhammad wrote: "It functioned with gov workers popping up and trying to catch her with a man in there, with both scheduled and surprise visits... making sure they hired the biggest assholes in the world to do it. Like those social workers that came by the house after Malcolm X's dad was killed."
I ask you to give an example of a government trying to use social programs in order to destroy the black family and you show an example of how the state government shit on the Little family in the 1920's after their father was lynched?
That isn't an example of the evil government popping up over your house to check for men folk Like the goddamn patty rollers, Muhammad.
The act of the Hillsdale local government isn't the entire government nor is it show the intent of any government program.
"Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined "need," set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at "matching" rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits."
This program was established for the instances where one parent is missing and the income is low.
Republican's always blame the program itself and then they try to use bullshit statistics to justify their claim. They use Thomas Sowell to do it to his own people.
Demonizing welfare was used as a desperate attempt by Ronald Reagan to scare white people into voting for him. He used some gangster lady and exaggerated her welfare abuse (ignoring her drug dealing and human trafficking and all of the other shit that she was into) and acted as if that's what she was all about AND that every other black person who sucks off the government tit does the same thing.
The Truth Behind The Lies Of The Original 'Welfare Queen'
It started in the 1970's when it wasn't as popular to call black people niggers on tv anymore and political correctness was used to try and heal some of the wounds after the civil rights era. George Wallace and the Dixiecrats' message of "Hating the colored folk" had failed nationally mostly because of MLK and his willingness to let the southern racist beat them on TV and show the average American what support for them looks like.
In the 1970's they could just get on TV and scream, "NIGGER, NIGGER, NIGGER!!!" They had to change their wording for their message.
Ronald Reagan decided to use welfare as his pet issue. Listen to the reactions of the crowd as the "gasped" and "whoooooed" in horror as Ronald Reagan used this one lady to represent all of us.
Ronald Reagan didn't get the nomination but that bullshit welfare demonization stuck with most working class white people and he became President in 1980 pushed by what they coined "Reagan Democrats."
In 1981 Lee Atwater was being recorded by a journalist and gave up the game.
Exclusive: Lee Atwater's Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy (YouTube)
Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy (Article)
"Harvey LeRoy "Lee" Atwater (February 27, 1951 – March 29, 1991) was an American political consultant and strategist to the Republican Party. He was an adviser to U.S. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee."
You know that Thomas Sowell is a big fan of Ronald Reagan.
The facts tell a much different story.
The Truth Behind The Lies Of The Original 'Welfare Queen'
- Muhammad wrote: "So your graphs show that the increasing juvenile delinquency has been dropping down from record highs, but are still high, and are still high in low income black communities. I don't see how that disproves my contention that welfare was one of the tools that led to the current problems in the poor black community, outside of a specific narrowly focused timeline."
You say that welfare causes it yet welfare benefits are a constant.
If the juvenile delinquency rates fluctuate then by the very definition of process variation your argument is false.
- 1.) I already know about the 'welfare queen' scandal, and I've always sided with you on it. That's not my argument.
2.) Post an example quote of Sowell using bullshit/false statistics to justify a GOP talking point, please.
3.) Sending gov workers out to terrorize families -- as in the example used -- is how those aid assistance laws were enforced. Your patty rollers analogy is apt. Systemic racism didn't lift off.
4.) When I first posted the AFDC program I said what it was originally created for back in 1935. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, and 'integration' took, the AFDC and how it was maintained altered as well.
- 1. And yet...
2. Thomas Sowell - Government Statistics
3. I'm so scared of the government case worker that I'm not going to be in my kids lives anymore is the worlds dumbest argument. We can't meet at your mommas house or nothing, huh?
4. Post up
5. Excuse you
Thomas Sowell (former Marxist) Dismantles Leftist Ideology
- I can't stand this fucker!
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "And yet..."
At no point ever have I advocated for that pro-Reagan 'welfare queen' concept. Ever. I know you have your bucket full of ammo to use against that stuff, but I'm not
that guy. My arguments using welfare involve two items: 1) a specific type of program that trained a generation of uncommitted fathers and "I don't need a man!" mothers 2) mega-corporations receiving the lion's share of the gov welfare pie, while the CEOs and lesser GOP minions pretend that the poor's share is the problem with the world.
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Thomas Sowell - Government Statistics - Video Dailymotion [Video]"
He saw the published gov report with excerpted statistics, and order the complete data and dismantled it on camera. Technically he's using the real statistics, while critiquing the original bullshit, cherry-picked statistics that were falsely being used to support a fake point. I don't really think he's promoting a GOP talking point here per se. You're going to have to counter him to show that he's wrong in order to make your point.
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "I'm so scared of the government case worker that I'm not going to be in my kids lives anymore is the worlds dumbest argument. We can't meet at your mommas house or nothing, huh?"
I'm sure people were doing that and figuring out the system, sure. There were also many other that were falling victim to the darkside of what those programs allowed. No commitment to mothers of your children, when who are trained to "not need a man" since they can't count on the men of their own generation to help unlike the previous generations.
- 1. A welfare program can't train you into doing shit that you don't already want to do. There are millions of different variables that cause people to not stick around for their families. Just because Sowell made a career trying to tie social welfare programs to the morality of poor black people doesn't make it so. Ignoring the deliberate drug culture injected on us does your argument a disservice Muhammad. You KNOW that the revolution wasn't televised because it was drowned in drugs.
2. Income inequality has very little to do with government welfare pie and everything to do with corporations paying people less while raking in record profits. Sowell also is against the minimum wage and blames it for poor people being poor. He worked at the labor department when they introduced the minimum wage and sited it as a reason why he quit. Government welfare as a cause isn't supported by the facts.
- "Abdur Rasheed wrote: "I'm so scared of the government case worker that I'm not going to be in my kids lives anymore is the worlds dumbest argument. We can't meet at your mommas house or nothing, huh?"
Muhammad wrote: "I'm sure people were doing that and figuring out the system, sure. There were also many other that were falling victim to the darkside of what those programs allowed. No commitment to mothers of your children, when who are trained to "not need a man" since they can't count on the men of their own generation to help unlike the previous generations."
Do you have any data to support this theory?
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "...trying to tie social welfare programs to the morality of poor black people..."
Where'd he do THAT at? Because the Sowell I know is the one that traced the worst behavioral traits of poor blacks to the uncouth behaviors of the slavery era poor whites they picked it up from.
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Do you have any data to support this theory?"
Yes, it's detailed in the original Moynihan Report.
The Negro Family: The Case for National Action
- And what programs does the Thomas Sowell that you know credit for the continued uncouth behaviors of poor blacks? What social programs are you arguing against that "trained" our people and keep us in poverty?
You can't argue BOTH sides Muhammad.
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Ignoring the deliberate drug culture injected on us does your argument a disservice Muhammad."
That's curious, because I'm pretty sure that unleashing the drug/alcohol upon the now broken up families was actually the number three point in my ACTUAL argument I took the time (you're welcome) to detail out for you point by point.
As usual you choose instead to argue with the caricature of Muhammad you made up in your head, thus comments like "And yet..."
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "You can't argue BOTH sides Muhammad."
I don't even know what "both sides" you're supposed to be subscribing to me. I am willing to admit that I haven't done a good job of laying out what my argument really is...? Possibly being the reason you skimmed over that post, and thought I was regurgitating that 'welfare queen' shit?
Sowell didn't say anything about "continued programs" as far as I know. I just know that the one that did the damage in the relevant era was the AFDC one. Did it need to continue pass 1996? Two generations of poor black youth were trained to act that way, and continue to pass those traits along to the next gen. Did the programs have to continue? Obviously not. That shit is part of that community's sub-culture now.
- They continue to be in poverty because, once the family was broken up, the drugs/alcohol were pumped in, and the prison industrial complex feeds upon them in the new slave state era. The original 'conscious rap' of the hip-hop pioneers was deliberately ignored by mainstream music company execs in favor of that bs that glorifies the traits that lead to the broken family. Once again manipulating the community with money...
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Income inequality has very little to do with government welfare pie and everything to do with corporations paying people less while raking in record profits."
Doesn't matter here. I only bring it up in my own debates to show the hypocrisy of wealthy GOP folk -- who receive free gov subsidies as part of their income stream folio -- blaming the poor's tiny slice of that same pie for the country's ills.
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Sowell also is against the minimum wage and blames it for poor people being poor."
I think that the minimum wage should regularly be increased to keep up with the rate of inflation, otherwise it's not fair.#theFiatPlayerIsAMotherfucker
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "He worked at the labor department when they introduced the minimum wage and sited it as a reason why he quit."
Before the minimum wage, unemployment was lower among the black community, especially among the youth. After it was put in effect, the unemployment skyrocketed. Basic economics. I'm genuinely interested in your counter to his argument to prove him wrong.
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Government welfare as a cause isn't supported by the facts."
I guess it depends on what cause you are referring to exactly.
- Maybe I have been arguing against a caricature of you.
I've been thinking that you are an fan of Partisan conservative economist Thomas Sowell who CLEARLY is following the GOP agenda and it appeared that you believe him sighting a report written in 1965 and sighting that the single parent rate of African Americans is 25% and using that biased ass data point that welfare was used to break up the black family and ignoring the current data that 39% of white families are single right NOW.
There are 49 million people on some kind of welfare in this country.
38% are black. That's 18million black people on welfare.
50% of them are in single parent houses (one mother or one father) that's 9 million single black homes on welfare.
There are 42 million black people in this country TOTAL.
That's 21% single black families on welfare.
21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month
Poverty of African Americans has also declined yet the welfare programs are STILL in place.
Who’s poor in America? 50 years into the ‘War on Poverty,’ a data portrait
That percentage hasn't changed.
21.3 Percent of U.S. Population Participates in Government Assistance Programs Each Month
- Muhammad wrote: "Before the minimum wage, unemployment was lower among the black community, especially among the youth. After it was put in effect, the unemployment skyrocketed. Basic economics. I'm genuinely interested in your counter to his argument to prove him wrong."
- The minimum wage was set in 1938 at .25 cents.
Unemployment skyrocketed in 1929 during the Great Depression.
There was a market force spike in 1938 after the law was implemented then the unemployment rate dropped as the recovery took place.
The data suggests that unemployment certainly didn't hurt poor people. It looks like it was a driving force that got the economy working again.
The data suggests that who ever you got that from is full of shit.
Watch: Pres. Clinton Explains Why Republicans are Wrong About the Minimum Wage
- Thomas Sowell wrote: Words seem to carry far more weight than facts among those liberals who argue as if rent-control laws actually control rents and gun-control laws actually control guns.
It does no good to point out to them that the two American cities where rent-control laws have existed longest and strongest — New York and San Francisco — are also the two cities with the highest average rents.
Nor does it make a dent on them when you point out evidence, from both sides of the Atlantic, that tightening gun-control laws does not reduce gun crimes, including murder. It is not uncommon for gun crimes to rise when gun-control laws are tightened. Apparently armed criminals prefer unarmed victims.
Minimum-wage laws are another issue where the words seem to carry great weight, leading to the fact-free assumption that such laws will cause wages to rise to the legally specified minimum. Various studies going back for decades indicate that minimum-wage laws create unemployment, especially among younger, less experienced, and less skilled workers.
When you are unemployed, your wages are zero, regardless of what the minimum-wage law specifies.
Having followed the controversies over minimum-wage laws for more than half a century, I am always amazed at how many ways there are to evade the obvious.
A discredited argument that first appeared back in 1946 recently surfaced again in a televised discussion of minimum wages. A recent survey of employers asked if they would fire workers if the minimum wage were raised. Two-thirds of the employers said that they would not. That was good enough for a minimum-wage advocate.
Unfortunately, the consequences of minimum-wage laws cannot be predicted on the basis of employers’ statements of their intentions. Nor can the consequences of a minimum-wage law be determined, even after the fact, by polling employers on what they did.
The problem with polls, in dealing with an empirical question like this, is that you can only poll survivors.
Every surviving business in an industry might have as many employees as it had before a minimum-wage increase — and yet, if the additional labor costs led to fewer businesses’ surviving, there could still be a reduction in industry employment, despite what the poll results were from survivors.
There are many other complications that make an empirical study of the effects of minimum wages much more difficult than it might seem.
Since employment varies for many reasons other than a minimum-wage law, at any given time the effects of those other factors can outweigh the effects of minimum-wage laws. In that case, employment could go up after a particular minimum-wage increase — even if it goes up less than it would have without that increase.
Minimum-wage advocates can seize upon statistics collected in particular odd circumstances to declare that they have now “refuted” the “myth” that minimum wages cause unemployment.
Yet, despite such anomalies, it is surely no coincidence that those few places in the industrial world which have had no minimum-wage law, such as Switzerland and Singapore, have consistently had unemployment rates down around 3 percent. “The Economist” magazine once reported: “Switzerland’s unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9% in February.”
It is surely no coincidence that during the last administration in which there was no federal minimum wage — the Calvin Coolidge administration — unemployment ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent over its last four years. It is surely no coincidence that, when the federal minimum-wage law remained unchanged for twelve years while inflation rendered the law meaningless, the black teenage unemployment rate — even during the recession year of 1949 — was literally a fraction of what it has been throughout later years when the minimum-wage rate was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.
When words trump facts, you can believe anything. And the liberal groupthink taught in our schools and colleges is the path of least resistance.
: Facing Minimum-Wage Truth
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "The minimum wage was set in 1938 at .25 cents. Unemployment skyrocketed in 1929 during the Great Depression. There was a market force spike in 1938 after the law was implemented then the unemployment rate dropped as the recovery took place. The data suggests that unemployment certainly didn't hurt poor people. It looks like it was a driving force that got the economy working again."
You jumped to some weird conclusions here. I think you jumped to them anyway. The GP represented the nation's very first fiat system "bubble pop," which cause businesses to tank, resulting in mass unemployment. The 'recovery' procedure advised by the Money Trust is to spend your way out of it. So the gov started borrowing money from the Money Trust like they did during Bush's Great Recession. The economy slowly 'recovered' until the inevitable next bubble pop, as that's what fiat systems do.
Sowell pointed out that in 1939, the "minimum-wage law was ten years old, and the wage specified in that law was now so low that it was irrelevant, after years of inflation. It was the same as if there were no minimum-wage law." Yet you think it was somehow part of the 'recovery.'
I think that the minimum wage should increase to keep up with inflation, because of my stance on the gold standard versus fiat. Sowell is luke-warm to indifferent about gold standard discussions, and 100% disagrees with increasing the wage to match inflation. (i suspect this will cause a certain level of cognitive dissonance for you since the Muhammad caricature is all about blindly, uncritically following behind his "gurus").
- Have you verified anything that Thomas Sowell has claimed on your own or did you just roll with his bullshit talking points and assume that they were facts?
- What are you using to determine whether his arguments are bullshit or not? Since you seem so definitive that they are.
- Answer mine first.
Have you gone and pulled the number of times that the minimum wage have been raised and correlated that data against the national and African American unemployment numbers for those years and a few years after and followed where the actual data takes you or did you just take uncle Tom's partisan word for it?
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Answer mine first."
I can't. My Libertarian Limited Government argument has a mental block up.
Have you gone and pulled the number of times that the minimum wage have been raised and correlated that data against the national and African American unemployment numbers for those years and a few years after and followed where the actual data takes you, or nah?
- What does Libertarian limited Government mental block up mean?
If you haven't then you're not done yet.
Quoting this Uncle Tom's bullshit ISN'T research, Bro.
Do the work and follow where it leads. If I do it for you and post it you're going to dismiss it because it didn't come from Sowell.
It's either going to verify what Sowell is saying or expose him for a fraudulent bitch. Either way...you'll KNOW.
I posted the first year's data from 1938 when they came up with the minimum wage.
His bullshit theory doesn't line up with the facts.
I can tell you that he quoted the NRA's bullshit argument about gun control laws not being effective. We BOTH know that I know ALL about how criminals acquire guns and I can definitively bust his and the NRA's bullshit argument with ease.
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Maybe I have been arguing against a caricature of you."
Feels like you do it a lot. I'm pretty sure your Ma does it to you and you don't like it. Why would you think I'd love it? :P
Actually I don't care. You can keep doing it. It's funny. I get my real Internet Argument fix from strangers anyway.
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "I've been thinking that you are an fan of Partisan conservative economist Thomas Sowell..."
I'm a BIG fan of his works on race.
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "...who CLEARLY is following the GOP agenda..."
He's been a Senior Fellow at the very conservative Hoover Institute for many years, and since that's been his main gig, he is casually friendly with a lot of those GOP talking points. His strength is when he pulls out his scholar kit for his masterworks though. That's the stuff I'm into. It's funny watching the GOP tenderly tiptoe around that stuff: "He's so well spoken!"
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "...and it appeared that you believe him sighting a report written in 1965 and sighting that the single parent rate of African Americans is 25% and using that biased ass data point that welfare was used to break up the black family..."
The important part is that the program did what it needed to do to negatively affect the demographic it did, with the desired results. Instant slaves!
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "...and ignoring the current data that 39% of white families are single right NOW."
They also are on heroin, drinking, and committing suicide a lot. They can fix their own shit, I'm talking about MY people.
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "What does Libertarian limited Government mental block up mean?"
It means I can't snap to "AYE, SIR!" at your command because I have a mental block caused by the "Libertarian limited Government argument" you subscribed to me earlier.
- What? I'm not giving you an order to do shit.
I'm asking a question wether you did your OWN research and pulled the ACTUAL data to compare to Thomas Sowell's comments about unemployment vs the minimum wage?
If you don't think that it's necessary then that's cool, but until you do you have to stop quoting him and posting his trope as if it's a fact. It makes you look like a fan boy and less smart.
- That's how I feel whenever I notice you uncritically repeating left-leaning talking points, and arguing against GOP talking points that I never claimed. It makes you come across like a sheeple automaton.
Thomas Sowell is a high-level, highly educated, professional scholar, and subject matter expert in the things I quote him on. The only person who would attempt to shame someone else for quoting a scholarly subject matter expert to support a point, is the person who finds that he cannot counter said scholar. So he invents a new debate rule that says I'm not allowed to quote a professional, ivy league university trained scholar unless I aped all of his research first.
Did you think that made you sound smart?
- It Absolutely does.
If ANYBODY has a political agenda that they want to push then verification of their "facts" is very important.
Letters behind your name isn't proof that you're not bullshitting me. Is it??
I'm not arguing against his stance on these things because he's a conservative.
I verified Rachel Maddow's "facts" as well.
"Damn! That's true. Check mark."
All I'm ASKING is if you have done the same with Sowell?
If you don't want too because he went to school then...
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "I verified Rachel Maddow's 'facts' as well."
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "If you don't want too because he went to school then..."
I don't want to because I'm busy. lol The idea that I can't quote a professional scholar -- who has a team of grunt work researchers on the Hoover Institute's payroll working under him mind -- because I haven't followed behind him and duplicated all of the prep work used to write his books, is more than just "not smart," it's absolutely insane.
At this point, I'm expecting you to find my number and call my house and whatever else Neil P claimed you did. Get back on your damn meds, Sarge.
- So did I say go behind him and re check EVERYTHING he said or did I ask you to verify the "facts" that YOU posted as proof of his case???
Let's rewind the tape.
Abdur ACTUALLY wrote: "Answer mine first.
Have you gone and pulled the number of times that the minimum wage have been raised and correlated that data against the national and African American unemployment numbers for those years and a few years after and followed where the actual data takes you or did you just take uncle Tom's partisan word for it?"
Seemed like I asked IF You verified ONE SPECIFIC POINT to me.
Maybe I'm tripping.
If what he said can be verified as an actual fact and not a partisan talking point verified with a "come on man...you know how those liberals are."
Then you know that poster that you have of him is right.
What's the name of the bullshit argument when people attribute a point that you NEVER MADE and then argue against it as if you said it? Sounds pretty Neil Pish to me, Bruh.
."because I haven't duplicated ALL of his prep work..."
Not even close. Just that one thing.
Are you afraid that you will expose him as a bullshitter?
You shouldn't worry because you know...he's scholar and all so it's ok for him to bullshit you. Nice poster.
I like to KNOW when people are trying to bullshit ME. Probably because of my Sarg Meds or whatever.
They make me twitchy.
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "I verified Rachel Maddow's 'facts' as well."
Muhammad wrote: "Which ones?"
What do YOU care? Lol
You know that she has PHD's and shit so shouldn't you just believe her??
- Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Are you afraid that you will expose him as a bullshitter?"
In fact, in this particular thread, I'm confident that if you could've smashed it, you would have. You can't, so this is your new battle tactic.
Abdur Rasheed wrote: "You know that she has PHD's and shit so shouldn't you just believe her??"
I do trust Rachel's scholarship since you asked. I find that she's thorough when she has her scholar kit hat on, just like Sowell is. I'm a fan of hers, too. I'm not following behind them to verify unless I find I HAVE to, like for a project's control documents or whatever. HERE I do not have to, despite your claims. I just have to be able to understand their argument enough to argue and defend it, with a Rasheed's trademark wit, sarcasm & pizzazz.
- "Abdur Rasheed wrote: "Are you afraid that you will expose him as a bullshitter?"
Muhammad wrote: "No.
In fact, in this particular thread, I'm confident that if you could've smashed it, you would have. You can't, so this is your new battle tactic."
I guess that makes sense. I guess I'm arguing against Sowell's EASILY VERIFIABLE stance on this highly partisan issue just to practice.
It looks like you have no idea where to get the data from.
Just ask. You don't have to do the Neil P "Yes or no?" Bullshit Muhammad.
Unemployment numbers from 1948 to present
Do you know where to find the minimum wage numbers? How many times has it been raised and the amount to correlate the two sets of data?
You wanted to pick a fight with ME. Why? I don't give a shit, but at least verify your OWN stance on shit and quit hiding behind this Uncle Tom because "He went to school and learned not to flinch when the Republicans stuck their hand up his ass and worked his mouth like a puppet and he said that U.S. Colored folk got all of our bad traits and low morality from white folks so I trust him."
- Your link says "data not available." I'm too far away, I guess.
Making fun of a caricature of Sowell you invented doesn't move me either. lol
- You don't want to find it. It's ok.
I get it.
- I'm not picking a fight. I came to challenge the Carter meme quote, and it got legs like a regular thread.
- You think I can't see where you went in and fixed the link?
- (^welfare queen)
- Well what? I'm running errands and stuff. Wait. Stop acting like Jeremy.
- Here, find the statistics on this for me while you wait. And don't cheat because I'll know.
unemployment statistics for poor black youth 1935-1996
- Yeah I'm just fucking around running a multi-million dollar facility while you're running errands and shit.
I'll get right on that.
- You SAID if I needed help you would do it for me! hahahaha!
If you don't mean it then don't offer it. hahaha
Anyway, that's the exact data needed in order to confirm/disprove this particular pet issue. General population performance isn't the topic, but how the numbers looked for poor black youth during the relevant time period. I'm going to trust Sowell's scholarship on it because that's his thing. You can continue to poo-poo it while claiming you're too busy to pull those numbers to squash it because you were too busy pulling the numbers for gun control, or whatever you're paid to do over there. :P
- You confused "help" with me doing it FOR you.
I used "help" as in I will show you where you can find the data.
I've already pulled the data. They didn't break out the data by race until 1971 according to the department of labor and statistics.
Unemployment for poor African Americans went DOWN 4.4% overall after all of the minimum wage increases.
I'm not going to do it for you just so that you can dismiss it as "fingers and toes arithmetic" or whatever way that you feel that you need to avoid what I'm saying.
You do it yourself.
- Unemployment for poor African Americans went down between 1971 and 1996?
- 1971 to 2015
- What about up to 1996 when the AFDC program stopped?
- Well...1996 is WITHIN the time period of 1971 through 2015 sooooo....
- lol But if the unemployment didn't drop for them inside of that period, it would mean the over-all drop would mean something else in the analysis, I would think.
- Yes it would mean that the raising of the minimum wage is NOT a factor at best and that bullshit pro corporate anti minimum wage talking point is debunked.
- The over-all picture is too broad to make that claim. The narrowed focused data is needed to confirm or rule that out.
- For example, you said there was a 'market force spike' in '38 when the Money Trust's "spend, Spend, SPEND!" advice was implemented to enable the new fiat economy to recover from the Great Depression. It did so. You claimed that the earlier implemented minimum wage law looked like it was "a driving force that got the economy working again." That's one of those wild conclusions you jumped to because you just wanted it to be true, absent concrete proof in the data you pulled.
The recovery plan for Bush's Great Recession was no different than the original Money Trust's century old advice. The economy recovered under Obama, but can we say that minimum wage laws were the driving force that did so? Of course not. What did Hoover, Roosevelt, Bush, And Obama spend that borrowed Federal Reserve money ON that caused the economies to recover from those bubbles? Minimum wage policies?