Gingrich to black people: paychecks, not food aid

OMG! I can't believe Gingrich made such a ridiculous statement. (Why is he talking about black people anyway, they only vote for Democrats.) Gingrich should make sure his feet are restrained before opening his mouth.

Black people to Gingrich: Shut the Phuc Up you rich old fat white fool.

Haaaaaa......Priceless!

I agree with Newt. African Americans (and all Americans) should demand the Republicans in Congress pass meaningful jobs legislation like they promised to do before the 2010 elections.

OMG! I can't believe Gingrich made such a ridiculous statement.

Huh? You don't think blacks would prefer paychecks over food stamps? Or is it that you think it's "ridiculous" to believe they deserve paychecks instead of food stamps? Do you perhaps, believe they can't achieve paychecks?

So you really see a need for Newt to single out black people? It's ridiculous to assume anyone would prefer foodstamps over paychecks.

I wonder why white people - particularly poor and working class whites - don't realize how much republicans play them for complete fools. As Rick Santorum showed us last week and Gingrich shows us now, republicans put a black face on everything they hate about government. More importantly, they put a black face on everything they want white people to hate about government. Last week, Santorum veered into talking about black people in a discussion about Medicare - which white people use in far greater numbers - and the question that was originally posed to him didn't have anything to do with entitlement programs in the first place. Now Gingrich ignores the fact that black people have been demanding jobs in order to admonish black people to demand jobs. Even republican websites have carried articles about black people demanding jobs.

There has to be a reason why republican politicians treat white republicans like Pavlov's Dog, ringing that race-baiting bell to get them to salivating to get to the polls. Do republican politicians believe that white republican voters are stupid or do they believe that white republican voters are racist? I mean, if a republican politician hates welfare, why don't they say "lets get everyone off of welfare" instead of "lets get black people off of welfare"? Hell, when a republican hates Medicare, they still say "lets get black people off of welfare".

One day, republican politicians might stop treating poor and working class white people like chumps, waiving that red matador's cape of race in front of them to get them charging to the polls just so they can stick a sword in them later. But that would require poor and working class white people to stop acting like chumps. I'm not holding my breath.

So you really see a need for Newt to single out black people?

As he stated, blacks get the raw end of the deal on both food stamps and social security. Addressing that is no different that addressing equal pay for women.

When did we get to the point in this country where mentioning anything having to do with the black community became taboo?

So Gingrich is for socialism? Riiiight...

The only way to replace public assistance with a paycheck is through intentional employment, something the profit-driven private market won't do. So, in effect, he's calling for the government to step in and provide some public means of production to create circumstances that allow for the possibility of full employment.

Unfortunately, full employment would wipe out the army of the unemployed that the private sector uses as an excuse to hold wages down in the first place. That would not only diminish private sector profitability (gasp), but it would conflict with the Republican Party's dogma about small government and privatization of everything under the sun.

Basically, he's blowing smoke up everyone's a**... as usual.

- which white people use in far greater numbers -

Hmmm...you think maybe that's because there are a far greater number of whites in this country?

Same with food stamps. Here:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/28/us/20091128-foodstamps.html

So Gingrich is for socialism? Riiiight...

Since when is a paycheck "socialism"? It's capitalism at it's finest.

He wants to get people OUT OF the clutches of social engineering.

Huh? You don't think blacks would prefer paychecks over food stamps? Or is it that you think it's "ridiculous" to believe they deserve paychecks instead of food stamps? Do you perhaps, believe they can't achieve paychecks?

Or perhaps they they don't want an old white fool from a patently racist, homophobic, misogynistic party with a long personal history of doing nothing for blacks, gays and women, pandering to them, lecturing to them and using them as a photo op to gain votes by assuaging the guilt of all the other old white fools from the same party who also have done nothing for blacks in the past 50 years except showing them the middle finger. How anyone on this planet could possibly think that Pig Newton is now a friend of minorities and that his presidency would actually benefit them is delusional. Maybe he should go to a LGBT meeting and lecture them on how they can learn to love the opposite sex or go to a NOW meeting and lecture women on how wonderful it is to be a mother. The Pig is a mother, all right, a motherf......r!

When did we get to the point in this country where mentioning anything having to do with the black community became taboo?

When white politicians began using black people as a proverbial wedge issue to compel the votes of racists. The late Lee Atwater - campaign adviser to three republican presidents - put it quite succinctly:

You start out in 1954 by saying, "@!$%#, @!$%#, @!$%#." By 1968 you can't say "@!$%#" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "@!$%#, @!$%#."^[6][7]

^{Goldwater and Nixon both ran on States Rights}

^{Reagan's first speech after winning the republican nomination for president was in the county where three civil rights workers were murdered and buried in an earthen dam.}

^{Reagan railed in his stump speeches about an urban, Cadillac-driving welfare queen who didn't actually exist.}

^{Reagan described in his stump speeches people being justifiably angry at the sight of a "buck" using food stamps to buy steaks.}

^{Jesse Helms was losing his senate seat to Harvey Gantt until he ran the "white hands" ads.}

^{The RNC ran "call me Harold" ads against Harold Ford in his run at a Tennessee senate seat.}

^{George H.W. Bush ran the Willie Horton ads.}

^{Both Michelle Bachmann and Eric Cantor claimed that the entire global financial meltdown was caused by mortgage loans to people of color.}

^{Rick Santorum fields a question about economics and morphs his answer into black people on welfare}

^{Now, Newt Gingrich.}

^{Whenever white politicians want to vilify anything associated with the government, they put a black face on it. Who is more likely to have all those manufacturing jobs - unqualified blacks who got them through quotas or someone in Dubai or Beijing? While white folks were busy slurping up anti-affirmative action bull$hit, they ignored the exodus of jobs to other countries. Instead of looking at poor communities of color as the proverbial canary in the mineshaft, Americans allowed cynical opportunitists to play them and what happened to those inner city communities 30 years ago is happening to America right now.}

^{One day white republicans - particularly poor and working class ones - are going to realize how much they've been played for chumps. I suspect, however, that it will be too late by then.}

Since when is a paycheck "socialism"?

Did you read the rest of my post? If private capital were capable of generating full employment, it would. But it can't, so it won't.

The only way to replace public assistance with paychecks (for everyone) is to create enough public employment to dry up the sea of unemployed, and that would require that the jobs offered actually produce commodities for exchange (instead of simply taxing private enterprise to pay for public assistance), and jobs created with public means of production for exchange is a form of real socialism, not this rhetorical nonsense we hear about on the news everyday.

Pat N... so when is ole Newt gonna say white people: paychecks, not food aid'.

How about rich people: paychecks, not tax breaks

How about corps, as they are now people according to Reps: paychecks, not tax breaks

What is stopping ole Newt from saying that stuff ?

When did we get to the point in this country where mentioning anything having to do with the black community became taboo?

It hasn't but Pat N but ask yourself the question why Newt (I could/would normally say why is he of all people bringing it up)? The question that needs to be asked of the republican community is do conservatives really ask about the black community out of concern for them or to use them to excite their base who in reality don't care about what black americans?

I have to respect Newt for the B@lls to be willing to meet with the NAACP first and foremost. He should challenge the rest of the republican party candidates to do the same....although it would not be a good political move for these republicans candidates because they would be shown for what they are?

The majority of foodstamp recipients are likely Christians, is Newt going to churches and advocating they demand paychecks over foodstamps?

Women are also a large % of that population, why not go to women's groups and advocate the same? Newt pin pointed black people and hispanic people, not foodstamp recipients in general. Foodstamps are about poverty, not race or gender or anyother variable.

It goes along with the Obama food stamps your party invented.

I didn't need to read past that sentence. When a post starts with a falsehood, there's really no reason to continue reading it. Like it or not...Obama is indeed, the Food Stamp president. There have never been more Americans on food stamps. Not even under Carter.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2011/aug/19/obamas-food-stamp-economy/

What's really disgusting is that Obama is calling the rise in people on food stamps..."good for the economy".

The majority of foodstamp recipients are likely Christians, is Newt going to churches and advocating they demand paychecks over foodstamps?

"Likely"? Can you find any stats on that? Because I can find quantifiable data on blacks on foodstamps.

Women are also a large % of that population, why not go to women's groups and advocate the same?

Are you denying that blacks are the biggest victims of the government food stamp program? That, combined with the high unemployment rate in the black community makes this economy devastating for blacks. It boggles my mind that people actually have a problem with someone willing to take the time to address it! God knows, Obama sure as hell hasn't. He's completely ignored the black community for the past 3.5 years.

You know what I think this is? I think people are pissed off because Newt is a white republican male from the south. He's not "allowed" to address problems in the black community. Now...if he were Charlie Rangel or Maxine Waters and saying the EXACT SAME THING...the left would be calling him a "champion of the black community".

I think people are pissed off because Newt is a white republican male from the south.

It seems that Newt has who his statement was meant to fool FOOLED.....Newt is attempting to influence those that might vote for him that he ACTUALLY cares for a minority...Newt is trying to change the subject from his past....that is ALL...He is attempting to Fool conservatives that might be inclusive of other races and get them to defend him while he speaks in "southern code words".

No, I'm not even going to look for stats on that, it is already "well established" that we are a "christian nation" so it would stand to reason that the majority foodstamp recipients are likely Christian. I said that to point out the idiocy of addressing any ethnic group regarding their use of a tax payer funded program. It is @!$%#ing stupid.

Our economy has been in the crapper for a full year before Obama took office. To call him as the foodstamp president is equally stupid. I'm getting sick of stupid. What this is, in reality is that it is okay to single groups out by race, but not by economic class. Many on the right whine about how the 1% are picked on (class warfare). So it is either stupid to stereotype groups or it isn't, you cannot have it both ways.

I'd like to see any GOP'er hire any welfare recipient. Everyone send your resume to Newt and see if Newt or any of his cronies actually want to put their money where their lies are.....I mean mouths

Pat N.... so when as anybody black said what Newt said. Name a time when a black person has said that about white, who get more Gov't aid than any other race in America including Congress.

Also how come when Bush was Pres and more people were on wel-fare than the Clinton years, Newt never said this. You do know that Pres Obama has had othert Pres before him who at one time or another had more people on wel-fare than the previous Pres. Also most of the people, once again are white people. Just like in Iowa, where 87 % of white people are getting some Gov't aid. But according to ole racist Santoum, it is the black race who is what is ailing America.

Yo! Cranberry!

You sure have gotten the hang of Newsvine quickly. Golly gosh gee whiz...just LOOK at all the posts you've made in the one whole day you've been here! And you're using the "reply" function and the "blockquote" function like an old pro. Which of course, you're not...right? Gosh no. You're a newbie. Right?

Oh and your URL..."fukmewsvine@newsvine.com"...I'm sure that's justy a coincidence, right?

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2010-2011, the poverty rate in the U.S. reached its highest level since 1933 while the Forbes 400, an annual listing of America’s richest individuals inflation-adjusted net worth, cited that the wealth of the Forbes 400 rose from $507 billion in 1995 to over $2 trillion in 2011. Black Americans of all groups listed in national annual poverty analysis have the highest and increasing annual poverty rates in America going into 2012. I do not have to list the litany of all the problems that we face from double unemployment, foreclosures, loss of health care, incarceration, school drop outs, and other real painful problems as a result of the economic inequities and injustices that Black Americans face. The systemic problem of income inequality is a serious issue that we must address forthrightly. But we should not become cynical or hopeless. To the contrary, Black Americans have options. We first need to focus on this problem and we need to work on the solutions to income inequality. So much of our future is at stake. In the spirit of Dr. King and in the legacy of all our ancestors who overcame great hurdles in the past, let us pray, work, struggle, organize, mobilize, unify and build a future for our children and communities.

Join the movement. Let’s stand up to income inequality. Let’s occupy our dreams…. Let’s occupy our future.

Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. is National Director of Occupy the Dream and President of Education Online Services Corporation and the Hip- Hop Summit Action Network (HSAN).

http://milwaukeecourieronline.com/index.php/2012/01/05/black-american-income-inequality/

Pat N -

You have taken the time to make some very good points. I sometimes make comments that are deliberately somewhat facetious as a way to just make people think or to sharpen a debate. These comments are usually not very popular with either side, but they often generate a good response, like your post 1.4

Pat N... Your posts made the libs look racist and uninformed. Newt was right, and most of the blind libs cannot see it, and the ones that can, hate you and Gingrich for being right and pointing it out.

Thanks, JK & Dennis. I appreciate it. ☺

Pat N... Your posts made the libs look racist and uninformed.

LOL....your comment just means that you truly don't understand....not suprising but don't beat yourself up it is okay.

Lisa Lee:

Black people to Gingrich: Shut the Phuc Up you rich old fat white fool.

Well, I'm white and I am with you on this. Gingrich is one of the most corrupt legislators that has ever been in Washington DC. Don't take my word for it, that was Jack Abramoff that said in his new book and he should know because he was bribing all of them back then for billionaire corporations. That was the lobbyist scandal that sent Tom DeLay, the Republican House leader, to prison. Jack should know as a super lobbyist who bends over to take money. Gingrich most likely is making this anti black statement to try to win over Rick Santorum's ultra right wing fundamentalist nutcases to voting for him. Shameless butt kissing.

You don't think blacks would prefer paychecks over food stamps?

Pat N

If NEWT believed that, he would not need to "urge blacks to demand paychecks, not food stamps."

He would know that they already do.

BTW, we have not spoken in a while, I trust you had an enjoyable holiday season?

Jack Abramoff that said in his new book

Seems I have another book to read.

As long as jobs are allowed to be sent to China and India we will never fix the employment problem. The green energy bill we spent hundreds of billions on was a job stimulus for China,most of the green energy tech is being made in China. The idea that we can have a country of just service jobs is nuts.

Smart countries like Germany limit and prevent jobs from being outsourced.

Bwhahaha that is Hilarious! This idiot really doesn't want to be president, does he???? He's just goofin'.......... right?

Gingrich to black people: paychecks, not food aid

So when there are no jobs for the people, where the hell do you think they are going to get a paycheck from. You got it easy Nutty Newt, you live off the backs of the taxpayers. Maybe we should ave you and all the other dimwitted politicians get a real job and support your own sorry azzes for a change. What are people suppose to do if they have no jobs, or all the jobs have fled overseas. Starve!

Government and congress are the biggest group of freeloaders we have in America. They live off the rest of us, and it needs to be stopped once and for all.

REVOLUTION 2012

It's time to kick all these freeloaders to the curb where they all belong.

Gingrich needs a good azz whoopin, and thrown out of office asap along with Saintoum, Bachmann, and Romney

LLOL! Newt's mouth is like a trash....Garbage in, garbage out!

Pat N,

I think the point Dwille and Cranberry are trying to make is that there is a tendency to take the issues that affects blacks and make it a black issue. However, the same is not done for issues pertaining to white. The drug crack, for example, is widely known as the drug choice among blacks - hence a "black issue". Not surprising then many politicians enacted draconian policies to deal with the so-call "black-crack epidemic". In addition to it being a constant political talking point, laws were passed on the basis that these "violent black people and their crack use" was a burden on society and must be addressed via the use of the criminal justice system (i.e, harsher sentencing policies).

Today, there is a huge problem with meth, a drug that is heavily associated with white usage. Interestingly, the financial and social cost associated with meth appear to outpace those associated with crack. A crack user, for example, can manufacture crack in their home, move out and another person can move into the house. That is NOT the case with meth. The manufacturing of meth produces such a hazardous toxin that the home is no longer habitable. It must be destroyed. It is a fact that a number of homes and even apartments are abandoned due to meth. Yet, even though we are in an election year there is no mention of a "meth epidemic". Moreover, when the media and legislatures do address the issue of meth it is often along the lines of providing more rehabilitative treatment, not the criminal treatment (i.e. incarceration) the crack users receive. Why is that?

In the context of the article Dwille, Cranberry and others are trying to point out that Gingrich comments fits that pattern of demonizing the problems associated with blacks and ignoring the ones of white. It is no question that had meth been associated with blacks politicians would have jumped on it in the same way they are jumping on blacks on welfare. They are quick to point out the problems with blacks but dismiss the problems of whites. In closing, I find it rather interesting that the social problems affecting blacks are considered a black issue but the problems affecting white becomes a social issue, not a white issue. You do not have to be white, black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian or Alaskan/Hawaiian native to realize that the race card is being played.

Smart countries like Germany limit and prevent jobs from being outsourced.

Rhazes--

Germany is a great example of how to really address unemployment and with it, the extent of the social safety net. In Germany, workers sit on the board of directors alongside the manager class; sometimes as much as 50% of board seats are reserved for labor. They rarely have strikes in German corporations-- although the right to do so is there-- because the workers would be striking as much against themselves as they would against the owner or manager class. Their CEOs are well-compensated-- although not in the 400:1 ratio of US CEOs-- and labor in the car-manufacturing industry takes in about $60/hour (including benefits). U.S. auto workers now have a tiered wage system in which new union workers can be hired at about $13/hr. And, German workers get the benefit of Germany's universal healthcare.

As a result of Germany's labor-friendly business model, the small country of Germany makes and sells twice the volume of automobiles as we do, and their workers enjoy a true middle-class existence.

Addendumb: And despite the problems in the Eurozone, Germany's unemployment rate is at a 20 year low.

Rhazes,

As long as jobs are allowed to be sent to China and India we will never fix the employment problem.

I think this may also be a problem:

On December 7, 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, through the U.S. Embassy in India, announced that the State Department has authorized the U.S embassy to allow the admission of a limitless number of foreign workers into the U.S. to take jobs that millions of unemployed Americans could and would do...

...Between 2001 and 2006, the average number of admitted foreign “workers and trainees” into the U.S. was only 860,000. However, these numbers increased drastically beginning in 2007:

2007: 1,932,075
2008: 1,949,695
2009: 1,703,697
2010: 2,816,525

The above numbers are quoted from the Department of Homeland Security 2010 Yearbook of Immigration Annual Statistics, table 25, page 64, and shows the number of admitted foreign persons allowed into the U.S. as “workers and trainees.” That means every admitted foreign worker or trainee was admitted on an employment visa, which required every foreign worker had to be employed by a U.S employer before entering the U.S.; thus, every foreign worker was taking jobs that either would have been available to or were already occupied by U.S. workers. In the category of “Worker and Families” that were admitted into the U.S., the numbers increase by an average of 74% per year. Because many of these families include a working spouse, the impact on US. workers and lost U.S. jobs could be as much as doubled.

Americans feel the disconnect between “no jobs available” and importing millions of foreign workers. Is it purely coincidental that from 2008 through 2010, 8.4 million foreign workers found U.S. based jobs, while, according to the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistic, during the same time period, the U.S. lost approximately 8.4 million jobs...

http://lawofficeofjamesaotto.com/home/?p=74

Unfortunately, the article goes on.

Appearing before the NAACP worked out so well for McCain in 2008. I don't understand why white GOP types even talk about blacks. Newt seems determined to shoot himself in the foot.

'Does Newt not know that most recipients of Welfare are WHITE PEOPLE?! ' Sure. It is a white country. Blacks are only @ 16 % of the population. I am curious what percentage of the white and black population are on welfare ? Gotta check.

' which party has truly fought for equality in the work place? It's not the GOP.' The GOP is too busy fighting to keep the workplace alive, and in America. And losing that fight.

can...(post #1.36 oooops)

Yes, Newt needs to go before the NAACP so he can get schooled and that clown suit ripped right off of him (like Trump). Go Newt, I hope they put it on TV. The NAACP have been working on jobs and decent pay for all for quite some time. Newt You need to quit paying the race card. Blacks are not the only ones receiving government assistance. If you just go to the NAACP there is a link on jobs and helping people to find jobs. It's nothing like educating yourself before opening your mouth.

Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. From the ballot box to the classroom, the thousands of dedicated workers, organizers, leaders and members who make up the NAACP continue to fight for social justice for all Americans.

When did we get to the point in this country where mentioning anything having to do with the black community became taboo?

"""""Reality check

Newsvine seeds and comments (where mentioning anything having to do with the black community) are a dime a dozen. (routine)

Would it really matter if he were correct in his surmise? Would it matter at all? The simple truth is, the left hates Newt, period. Really doesn't matter what he says. In fact any member of the right or conservatives are always wrong for that one reason if nothing else, the left hates them and everything the left thinks they stand for. I have known since I was 13 that liberals hate more readily and more viciously than any other group I have ever encountered. Radical left wing environmentalists have called for the extermination of a third of the human race. Eat your heart out Adolf, you got nothing on this kind of hate. So why not show an ounce of honesty and just say, "Newt you are wrong because we hate you." I would not like that, but I could at least respect the honesty.

Zach: That was a well thought-out and reasonable response. Well done!

This has nothing to do with hating Newt that's just what you are saying. Since when did some one have to sit and nod their head in agreement listening to Newt imply that being food stamps is a just a black issue and he should not have addressed it as such? Everyone needs to be off of food stamp with a decent paying job it has nothing to do with color. Republicans need to get behind the President and pass some jobs bills. He's just appealing to that base like Santorum. I know I don't feel like I have to sit silently while he attempts to paint a false picture of Welfare and food stamps. Like the "Black Cadillac driving Welfare Queen" which was not true. What Does Hate Have to Do With It? It's just an emotion that I'm not engaging in. Be honest you put hate into it.

Would it really matter if he were correct in his surmise?

Yes, Tesla, it does matter if he's right or wrong in the ideas he forms about the world, since those same views would be the ones that would inform and affect his policies in the unlikely event he was elected... and even if unelected, have the potential to drive the poliicy directions of the party he wants to represent.

It isn't about whether we dislike him or not-- it's about whether his view of the world actually reflects reality or is simply dog-whistle rhetoric built on stereotypes.

Bull@!$%#. Go read the comments here and come back and tell me that with a straight face. I put hate into it? Riiiiiight, whatever gets you to sleep at night.

If the Cadilac Queen were not true, why then did the government feel they needed to switch to EBT to cut down on fraud and abuse I wonder???

Go and read my damned comment, ALL of the comment. What does it say? It says that if the left cannot find a good, viable reason, then simply hating anything and everything GOP and or conservative will do. Sweet Jesus! Liberals constantly claim to be smarter than everyone else and ya still gotta walk 'em through the simplest of things. One more thing spare me the "I don't think that way" routine. That is standard liberal fallback and intellectualy dishonest.

To say that someone hates because they don't agree with them was an assumption on your part. I don't hate Newt I just don't agree with him on this issue. There was No Black Cadilac Queen It's a Fact. I did not claim to be smarter than everyone else. Once again that's your interpretation. Calm down.

If it ain't welfare queens or Willi Horton types how else would teapublicons scare their base or get them riled up without demonizing blacks? [if you're Santorum, you demonize the "blahs"]

for some fat white old fart like Gingrich who has lived on the government dole his whole life, man he has got lots of nerve....doesnt he get a congressional pension, and get government healthcare?.....

HYPOCRITE.

I'm surprised this is a debate. Like it's been said- how can people demand a paycheck when the repubes aren't creating jobs with their ill gotten tax cuts?

Obama the foodstampiest President ever? Could be. Because, if he wasn't, he'd be the President who watch millions of Americans starve to death. Because why? Let me repeat myself- repubes aren't creating jobs with their ill gotten tax cuts.

The level of ignorance and hypocrisy being shown by these "people" should be criminal.

Why do we have to refer to each other by color anyway? I know I know...demographics...but for real. It is 2012. Its about time people became people and not a race, income, or political idealism. Its time business was business and not people. We need to put everything back where it belongs and get ready for the future! It is here already!!!!

Is ""blahs""" another new racist code word??

Is ""blahs""" another new racist code word??

Would it make conservatives consider not really but in reality they wouldn't consider it their coded language.....LOL

From No More Mister Nice Blog:

Oh, and here's a follow-up from the Gingrich camp:

I know that the left has a passion for defending it's right to be the only moral arbiter in America. Therefore, just as happened with Moynihan, if you in fact talk openly and honestly about the failure of liberal institutions and the way they hurt the poor, there becomes a sudden frenzy of a herd of people running screaming, 'racism, racism.' It is a fact that liberal institutions in inner cities have failed the poor. It's a fact that bad schools trap poor children. it's a fact that bad public safety policies lead to the collapse of cities like Detroit....

Five sentences, and in three of them poor is equated to non-white(assuming you read "inner cities" as "non-white urban neighborhoods" and "Detroit" as "scary hellscape full of Negroes," which Gingrich assumes you do).

There you go. He can't not equate "poor" with "black". That's a weakness.

In his original remarks, he said:

And I'll go to them and explain a brand new Social Security opportunity for young people, which would be particularly good for African-American males because they are the group that gets the smallest return on social security because they have the shortest life span.

His "brand new Social Security opportunity" is privatization. Surprise.

This is just a slight variation on the common conservative game of pretending they believe Social Security is "racist" because on average, blacks receive fewer benefits as a result of having shorter life spans...on average. First of all, as Gingrich implies, but fails to say explicitly, black women already have a longer average life span than white men, and the average life span for black women and men is increasing. So, more and more of the wind is being taken out of the sails of that argument as time passes.

But here's the real point- again, this argument reveals how conservatives view black people. They're convinced that the average black person would be so resentful of the bare fact that they receive less SS benefits on average than whites, regardless of what the reason for that is, they would be more than willing to take a chance on receiving even fewer, or even no SS benefits.

Newt is not concerned with pesky things like facts. The fact that he along with the rest of the GOP are so out of touch with Black America and the all ethnic groups in this country is appalling. I am surprised Newt hasn't ran an ad depicting Black people in a soup line begging for scraps.

More whites get welfare than blacks but the kicker is, 5% of whites get welfare vs. 30% of blacks, see any problem there?

Why do Liberals not consider it inconsistent to point out that the majority of welfare recipients are White, while simultaneously condemning Conservatives who want to reform or cut welfare programs as racists?

Does Newt not know that most recipients of Welfare are WHITE PEOPLE?! What a racist idiot.

What you said has no bearing on this conversation. The black population is smaller than the white population. Ergo, the percentage of the black population on welfare versus what percentage of the white population on welfare is the number you need to analyze before throwing the race card.

If you need any further help with the math, don't be afraid to ask.

Regards,

Mike

cannonballer

Indeed I do.

Seems as if workplace discrimination is alive and well.

More whites get welfare than blacks but the kicker is, 5% of whites get welfare vs. 30% of blacks, see any problem there?

Well, if rightists are as "colorblind" as they claim to be, why don't they see food stamp recipients as just a group of people, or as they always say, "just Americans"?

More whites get welfare than blacks but the kicker is, 5% of whites get welfare vs. 30% of blacks, see any problem there?

Duh.......Latent and active discrimination. Generational poverty....If that figure is even correct.

Check out American history regarding black people some time.

I would like to tell Newt personally what are you really proposing? I worked my way out of poverty like millions of other blacks. It first starts with making way more than minimum wage. Try to do that with discrimination in the work force it exist . That is just one hurdle find a good paying job i the inner city when most industry jobs are gone. Flipping hamburgers wont make it. good paying jobs have left this nation, hell Whites can't find them. How do you find a job on the buss are have to walk there are no good paying jobs where you don't need to travel. I and most o my sisters and brother made it out of poverty into middle and upper middle class thought the same programs that are cut. I'm sick and tire of rich @@#$@ telling me and and the rest of poor people who WORK what the @#$@ it is like being poor. Cannon if u think only 5% of Whites are getting assistance you truly need to check your figures it is truly BS. Finally don't you are anyone else tell me about being black it is about as dumb as me telling you ABOUT BEING WHITE! Clueless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Poverty is why people of any race need welfare. Eligiblity for foodstamps has nothing to do with race.

So clark are you saying that affirmative action doesnt work and we can scrap it?

krounded which part of history regarding blacks should I check out? The beginning where rival tribes sold prisoners into slavery or something after that? Oh, how about how the Democrats were pro slavery maybe? Or maybe how a Republican free'd the slaves?

cannon...... do you know that white women get the most benefit from A A. You do know that AA is not just for black people.

mike,

What you said has no bearing on this conversation. The black population is smaller than the white population. Ergo, the percentage of the black population on welfare versus what percentage of the white population on welfare is the number you need to analyze before throwing the race card.

If you need any further help with the math, don't be afraid to ask

Umm, you need to factor all the variables (eligiblity is based on income or lack there of not race) before YOU play the race card.

krounded which part of history regarding blacks should I check out? The beginning where rival tribes sold prisoners into slavery or something after that? Oh, how about how the Democrats were pro slavery maybe? Or maybe how a Republican free'd the slaves?

Who made the market for the slaves? That's a poor come back to a comment about why people are on aid.

Republicans freed slaves? What ever happened to that party? They went from the party of Lincoln to the party of Gingrich. Please tell me. The transformation has not been for the positive.

Republicans may have been a driving force in freeing slaves and even in the modern civil rights movement, but which party has truly fought for equality in the work place? It's not the GOP.

Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.

source

Or maybe how a Republican free'd the slaves?

The republican party was founded under the noblest of causes - to stop the spread of slavery after the Missouri Compromise. The party indeed has a rich tradition of at least attempting to have Constitutional liberties apply to all citizens. Unfortunately, that tradition ended in the mid-1960s and republicans have been pissing on Lincoln's grave ever since.

krounded which part of history regarding blacks should I check out? The beginning where rival tribes sold prisoners into slavery or something after that?

Well, at least you acknowledge that rival tribes sold prisoners into slavery That's a bit of an improvement over "they sold their own people". You should hip some of your buddies to the distinction. :)

Well, at least you acknowledge that rival tribes sold prisoners into slavery That's a bit of an improvement over "they sold their own people". You should hip some of your buddies to the distinction. :)

Keen observation Plantsmantx!

Newt needs to have an up close and personal meeting with all of those professional black basketball, football and music millionaires about his sick stereotype of blacks on welfare.

This is my big issue with Republicans like Newt, Santorum, Perry, and Bachmann. It's always about wedge issues they can inflame against non whites, non Republicans.

And this is at a time where we need to unite as a nation for the sake of national survival.

And this is at a time where we need to unite as a nation for the sake of national survival.

mountainmike...Honestly....do you see it in the foreseeable future happening?

Republicans freed slaves? What ever happened to that party? They went from the party of Lincoln to the party of Gingrich. Please tell me. The transformation has not been for the positive.

The party of Gingrich? Really?

Republicans may have been a driving force in freeing slaves and even in the modern civil rights movement, but which party has truly fought for equality in the work place? It's not the GOP.

Yeah the left is all about the welfare, that doesnt help anyone, it just keeps people dependant on the Government, it does assure the Dems get votes though.

Yeah the left is all about the welfare, that doesnt help anyone, it just keeps people dependant on the Government, it does assure the Dems get votes though.

Baller thats just a stupid right wing meme.Fact is job creation under Democratic far outpaces republican ones...they are the job presidents republicans claim to be. Democrats look to job creation, republicans are just for padding . African Americans abandoned republicans in the 1930's when conservative republicans teamed up with southern democratic conservatives...The African American poverty rate was 55% in 1960, that dropped to 27% in 1968 , declines under democratic administrations and rises unde republicans, except for when we are in the wake of the great recession .

cannonball...... our Gov't just gave Wall Street Trillions that we didn't even know about under Bush. I guess you don't have a problem with people who have Millions and Billions aready getting Trillions from the Gov't. That is a definition of WEL-FARE !!!

Infact, there has been a Reps Pres 20 years out of the last 32. That is is 20 to 12. with Reps leading and Reps have grew the Gov't, has added more to the Deficit and has put America in more wars.

ol doc gold

Some 61 percent of welfare recipients are White, while 33 percent are Black, according to 1990 Census Bureau statistics, the latest figures available.

So a white person is almost twice as likely to be on welfare!

What a wonderful, meaningful statistic you've shown us.

So a white person is almost twice as likely to be on welfare!

That would be accurate if the population of whites to blacks was the same. But it's not. 73% of the country is white. 13% is black.

When population is taken into account...5% of whites are on food stamps while 30% of blacks are. And for some reason, the left is all up in arms about a candidate actually addressing this discrepency and acknowledging the need for change.

Pat N

That would be accurate if

I know. It's even worse with Indians.

Allow me to demonstrate the mind of a non-racist conservative.

The American Indians were slaughtered, their lands taken. Feeling bad for them, we put them on reservations. I'll assume the educated here know the poverty level of Indian reservations.

I am a politician speaking in front of a tribe, keep in mind I have a vested interest in getting votes. While reading my statements to the 80% unemployed tribe of the Oglala Sioux, ponder whether my plans will benefit me or the tribe:

1. The white man hates you, he thinks you are nothing. If you vote for me, I promise to give you more federal funding and make sure your reservation stays intact for centuries to come.

2. I've never seen a more pathetic bunch of losers, wallowing in their own filth. Have you no pride in yourselves? What the hell is wrong with you? Am I supposed to be your babysitter?

Which one gets the votes, and which one is better for the tribe?

dwillie

Or maybe how a Republican free'd the slaves?

The republican party was founded under the noblest of causes - to stop the spread of slavery after the Missouri Compromise. The party indeed has a rich tradition of at least attempting to have Constitutional liberties apply to all citizens. Unfortunately, that tradition ended in the mid-1960s and republicans have been pissing on Lincoln's grave ever since.

actually the republican party started to sell african americans out with the tilden/hayes compromise of 1877.

that's right 1877

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/reconstruction-1877.htm

In return for Louisiana's presidential electoral votes, Republican Rutherford B. Hayes recognized Democrat R. T. Nicholls over Republican Stephen B. Packard as Governor of Louisiana. Nicholls had to determine which of the rival legislatures would act as the official institution. Nicholls convinced some Republicans to join his Democratic faction to give it the necessary quorum. After the last federal troops were pulled out of Louisiana on 24 April 1877, several southern states inactivated their black National Guard units.

As president, Hayes promptly fulfilled the promise he had secretly made to Democrats during the electoral dispute: that he would withdraw Federal troops from those states that they still occupied in the former Confederacy, thus formally ending the Reconstruction era. This action eased acceptance of Hayes' presidency among Southern Democrats and strengthened the rising spirit of postwar reconciliation among white Americans. It did so, however, at a severe cost to Southern African Americans.

The end of Reconstruction was marked by the removal of federal troops after the Hayes-Tilden Compromise of 1877. Radical Republicanism gave way to conservative policies favoring southern Democrats and "home rule" was restored to southern states. This resulted in a climate in which violence could be used to depress black voter turnout and fraud could be used to undo the effect of lawfully cast votes. Once whites regained control of the state legislatures using these tactics, a process known as "Redemption," they used gerrymandering of election districts to further reduce black voting strength and minimize the number of black elected officials.

then republican president calvin coolidge allowed the south to reinstall slavery in the aftermath of the great flood of 1927

and his cabinet member herbert hoover lost the black vote for the republican party by making promises to the african american leaders lead by robert russa moton. he reniged on his promises to the point of refusing to meet with the african american leaders who came to the white house to have him fulfill his promises.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/flood/

May 1927

Slowly word of the abuses in the refugee camps reaches the Northern press. Once the situation in the refugee camps hits the national press, Herbert Hoover initiates an investigation of the reports. His investigators confirm numerous instances of abuse, but Hoover chooses to suppress the report. Hoover, known as "the Great Humanitarian," has his eyes set on the presidency. He has ridden a wave of good publicity from his flood relief efforts, and is determined to maintain his positive image. Hoover forms a Colored Advisory Commission of influential African American conservatives, led by Robert Russa Moton, to further investigate the camps. The commission confirms the initial findings. In exchange for keeping the report quiet, Hoover promises that if he wins the election, he will support the advancement of African Americans, including possible agrarian land reform. Moton agrees, and Hoover is never called to account for the treatment of African Americans in Washington County.

1928

After Hoover is elected president, he turns his back on Robert Moton, the Colored Advisory Commission, and his earlier promises. Burned badly by Hoover, in the next election Moton and the African American community shift their support from the Republicans to the Democratic party and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

the republican party also purged itself of african americans who held high offices in the party

http://lobbyistsofficesofgrw.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/blacks-need-to-rejoin-the-party-republican-party-the-party-of-abraham-lincoln-and-pull-yourself-up-by-the-boot-straps-from-lobbyist-minister-a-w-khabir/

The GOP’s abandonment of African-Americans commenced with the presidential election of 1876. The party had already been subordinating its agenda of black equality to that of cultivating Northern industrialists when Ohio Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, to resolve a contested election, agreed to the notorious Compromise of 1876. In exchange for their support, Hayes promised Southern Democrats to withdraw federal troops from the South and to let them treat blacks as they pleased.

Ironically, the compromise also crippled black Republicanism, as state Republican parties, to compete for white votes, engaged in racial me-tooism, purging blacks from the party or shunting them into “Black and Tan” delegations whose legitimacy was (questioned).

then came the anti civil rights barry goldwater, the southern strategy, and the rest culminating in the clown car that is the republican party today.

I stand corrected, kappa man. Apparently, the best that can be said is that since Reconstruction, republicans have demonstrated a malevolent schizophrenia toward black people in the name of political expediency.

That's great information you've provided. Thanks.

...Though Texas blacks appealed to Northern party managers to halt the movement, lily-whiteism flourished because Republican presidents after 1865 wanted approval from the Southern white masses. The term lily-white apparently originated at the 1888 Republican state convention in Fort Worth, when a group of whites attempted to expel a number of black and tan delegates. Norris Wright Cuney, the black Texas leader who controlled the state party from 1883 until his death in 1896, promptly labeled the insurgents "lily-whites," and the term was soon applied to similar groups throughout the South.

From The Handbook of Texas Online

Just wanted to point out- that from what I was able to stomach reading in this section- most people do not understand what Affirmative Action is.

Do yourself a favor. Read about it. Try and educate yourself. Because you look really, really foolish to those of us who actually do understand it and make a living managing the program and process.

The fact is that Newt singled out black people. "They should demand paychecks, not food stamps", (nudge-nudge, wink-wink, since we all know most of them are on food stamps anyway), he might have added.

Outrageous.

This, while the Kansas House Speaker has to apologize for sending an e-mail referring to the First Lady as "Mrs. Yomama" who is 'enjoying a vacation on our tax dollars'. Nope, no racism there. /sarc.

Yeah the left is all about the welfare, that doesnt help anyone, it just keeps people dependant on the Government, it does assure the Dems get votes though.

The Left is not "all about welfare". They are simply willing to chance that a few will abuse the system, rather than see the far larger number of those that need help - starve. (And the Left being all about welfare for built in votes is a very overused and inaccurate statement. It's a talking point - a very unsophisticated talking point.)

I guess the Right is all about seeing the majority of honest people that need some help go hungry and live in a cardboard box simply to deny the minority of those that abuse the system. See how one sided that sounds?

Republican policy has put more people on aid than they ever dreamed a Democrat could do by simply making the programs available. Some Republicans might mean well but are blinded by their delusion that someone is always taking something from them.

The fact is that Newt singled out black people. "They should demand paychecks, not food stamps",

Oh My! The horror of it! Newt "singled out" the one group that is most plagued by food stamps and high unemployment rates!

What dastardly thing will he say next? That women should demand equal pay for equal work? How dare he!

Lower pay for equal work is known women's issue.

Newt was not in front of a black audience, food stamps is a national issue, it is an issue for poor people of any color.

The only reason to bring up blacks in front of a predominantly white audience when speaking about a national issue is racism.

Alex republican or conservative women are of the mind of the acceptable barefoot and pregnant mantra so they can remain in the party

Lower pay for equal work is known women's issue.

And unemployment as well as food stamps is a known minority issue, especially targeting blacks. Your point? Why is it so difficult for you to admit that the only reason you take issue with Newt making this statement is because you don't like him? Why can't you admit that you don't have a clue what his track record is regarding issues like this?

Alex republican or conservative women are of the mind of the acceptable barefoot and pregnant mantra so they can remain in the party

Getting a hair sloppy with that broad brush, aren't you? Can you explain why this conservative woman works on 100% straight commission and regularly brings home north of 6 figures? Why Bachmann was an attorney and then a US Representative? Palin started as a PTA member and worked her way up to Governor? Coulter is a NYT best selling author with a prolific education?

Here's the difference. Conservatives believe in REAL choice for women. If they want a career, great. If they don't and would rather stay home and raise a family...we think that's fine, too. Many on the left snub their nose at the latter and view raising a family with disdain.

Why Bachmann was an attorney and then a US Representative?

Conservatives believe in REAL choice for women.

Didn't she say she got permission from her husband to go to law school? I hope that belief that conservatives have in their women will keep her in the presidential race/s

Didn't she say she got permission from her husband to go to law school?

Ummmm...no. She had a conversation with her husband about it. You know, that "communication in a relationship" thing. Novel concept, I know.

Why are some liberals so against women who prefer to not work, stay home, raise a family and have multiple kids, anyway? Also, why do they write off successful conservative women as an anomoly or belittle them? Isn't that rather sexist? I thought the left championed ALL womens rights.

Ummmm...no. She had a conversation with her husband about it

You mean like this one

And from there, my husband said "Now you need to go and get post-doctorate degree in tax law." Tax law? I hate taxes. Why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says: Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands

Why are some liberals so against women who prefer to not work, stay home, raise a family and have multiple kids, anyway?

Why do you paint liberals as being against women having the freedom to make a choice?

Isn't that rather sexist? I thought the left championed ALL womens rights.

Yes it is sexist. Each side picks and chooses when and what they view as sexist usually when a sexist remark is made against "their" candidate and remain eerily quiet when it is against the other party's women candidate.

I could say the right say they are for ALL women's rights (as long as they are conservative) but you would probably say I am painting with my broad brush?

You mean like this one

I love it. Not only do you use a faaaar left wing site that appears to be solely dedicated to smearing Bachmann, you taqke one excerpt and fail to include where SHE made the decision to go to Law School and had conversations about it with a FRIEND of hers. Your claim in #2.37 is that she "got permission from her husband to go to LAW SCHOOL. And your own biased source shows that's patently false. From YOUR source:

And during those dorm years, when I was busy studying, the Lord put in my heart, that if I would be diligent and I would be steadfast, He would take me to law school. And I thought, law school? I have no interest in going to law school. But I put that in His hands and I put in His plan, and I put it in His hands, and pursued that, and eventually He did, He took me to law school.

Hmmm. Can you show me where she "got permission from her husband to go to law school?

Why do you paint liberals as being against women having the freedom to make a choice?

Why are you refusing to answer my question? Why do some liberals snub their noses at and belittle women who choose to be stay at home moms and raise families?

And during those dorm years, when I was busy studying, the Lord put in my heart, that if I would be diligent and I would be steadfast, He would take me to law school. And I thought, law school? I have no interest in going to law school. But I put that in His hands and I put in His plan, and I put it in His hands, and pursued that, and eventually He did, He took me to law school.

Nice....her husband "drove" her to law school....the "HIS" is GOD....but maybe you missed this:

But the Lord says: Be submissive, wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands

Why do some liberals snub their noses at and belittle women who choose to be stay at home moms and raise families?

Liberals don't snub their noses at working women and in fact encourage them to do both if that is HER choice. It is your painting of liberal women as being somehow different of conservative women as wanting to work or not work raise a family or not raise a family. So it is your own view that liberals snub conservative women and to believe (if using your own views) that conservatives don't have the same views would be crazy. That being said in both cases it is wrong.

Nice....her husband "drove" her to law school

What part of your own link are you missing? YOU claim that Marcus told her to go to LAW SCHOOL. That's simply not true. Per your own link, he had nothing to do with law school itself and the only time he comes into play is when they had a discussion as a couple that she should specialize in tax law.

Liberals don't snub their noses at working women and in fact encourage them to do both if that is HER choice.

For the third time...that wasn't my question. I asked you why some liberals snub their noses at women who choose to be stay-at-home-moms and raise families. Are you going to answer that question or just keep dancing around it?

were do you get that idea? What makes you think that liberal women do that? It certainly doesnt square with any liberal women I have ever met.

were do you get that idea? What makes you think that liberal women do that?

Here:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_highbrow/2006/06/a_working_girl_can_win.html

Get to work, Linda Hirshman admonished American women in a polemical article in the American Prospect last December, in which she argued that it's imperative for women not to "opt out" of employment to stay home with the kids. Only by working, she claimed, can women can have a fully "flourishing" life.

http://www.violentacres.com/archives/243/if-you-are-a-stay-at-home-mom-without-interests-outside-of-your-kids-hobbies-or-marketable-skills-you-are-not-a-feminist/

If one more stay-at-home-Mom tells me they are a Feminist because they chose their lives (all by themselves!), I am going to pour battery acid in my own eyes.

http://www.boundless.org/regulars/kaufman/a0000947.html

Ritter says “full-time mothering is … bad for children.” You see:

It teaches them that the world is divided by gender. This sends the wrong message to our sons and daughters. I do not want our girls to grow up thinking they must marry and have children to be successful, or that you can only be a good mother if you give up your work.

And there's a ton more where those came from.

For the third time...that wasn't my question. I asked you why some liberals snub their noses at women who choose to be stay-at-home-moms and raise families. Are you going to answer that question or just keep dancing around it?

Here is a good article that may answer your question :

Recall how Republicans in Congress, at the behest of their corporate backers, tried mightily to block President Clinton's Family and Medical Leave Act, which granted women the right to take unpaid time off to have a baby and still keep their jobs.

or this one:

Greene and Elder had previously looked at similar data for elections going back through 1980, and their new research shows that the trend is strengthening for men with children to become more conservative, while the trend for moms to become more liberal is holding steady.

and an article about Bristol Palin in par speaking to the evolving views of Republicanst:

It was all about politics, of course. But behind it, the Republican reaction to Bristol Palin's pregnancy hints at how much the world has changed in 16 years. That the vagaries of a candidate's family life — even salacious ones — are treated by the GOP spin machine as just another domestic bump may be politically predictable, but it's also a notable cultural moment.

Pat, just because there are some women who think that way doesnt mean they are liberals. I've heard similar things coming fom women I know who happen to be conservatives. I guess that I dont see feminism as a distinctly liberal idea. You wouldn't call Bachman or Palin feminists?

Your first link kind of confirms that:

A full-scale assault on Hirshman ensued, from conservatives and liberals alike. What has riled everyone up isn't just Hirshman's message that only in the work force will women find fulfillment. It's that Hirshman attacked the sacred cow of the motherhood debate: the notion that it's a good thing liberated women are allowed to choose whether to work or stay at home—an intellectual paradigm Hirshman dubbed "choice feminism."

keep_it_cool @2.29- unfortunately, it's an exercise in futility. Their rhetorical script dictates that they pretend that affirmative action is something it no longer is, and to a large extent, never was. Gingrich's rhetoric is a perfect example of the same sort of thing. In one breath, he brags about being the (supposed) main mover and shaker behind welfare reform, and in the next breath, he talks as if welfare reform never happened.

' 5% of whites get welfare vs. 30% of blacks, see any problem there? ' OK, question answered.

George: Now try to find out WHY. Do some study on the facts. Then maybe you'll understand why.

George could you now put that in actual number on food stamp with each group and the amount spent for each group?

To break that down, out of the 29,000,000 on welfare, 11,600,000 are white, 11,300,000 are black (or more likely black AND white since nobody in America is all black), and the rest are mostly Hispanic (considered white anywhere but in America). Numbers from http://voice-of-american-middle-class.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-is-race-percentage-for-welfare.html

Now if you include tax write-offs, bailouts, and other forms of welfare, you will most likely find far more well-to-do folks, whatever their so-called racial identity, than any other group on corporate, free-lunch, white collar welfare.

As an African-American male, what Newt has stated is straight manure. Newt has no point and neither does anyone that thinks that black people sit around and looking for charity in the form of food stamps and welfare checks. We want jobs and an equal shake in all financial and social opportunities.

We want jobs and an equal shake in all financial and social opportunities

Exactly.

There are a few lazy bums out there who would rather be poor and live off of handouts. But most Americans would rather live the American dream: get a good education, a good job, and build a good life for their families. It's not a racial thing, it's an enabling thing. We need good education, good job training, good job opportunities, living wages, health care, etc, etc. Not platitudes, racial divisivness, or posturing. In other words, we don't need any of the things Newt stands for. And we don't need him taking a serious problem and trying to take advantage of it, simultaneoulsy pandering to blacks and reaffirming to whites the silly notion that blacks are lazy handout takers, while whites already want to work.

CMlawyer

Thank you for this comment.

Such a shame that some of the posters here and elsewhere wherever there are conversations going on about this, do not want to admit that Newt is dogwhistling.

When I keep hearing the so-called news media inforcing the notion that telling the histories and factual stances of these Republican presidential hopefuls as being negative campaigning, I am not surprised that attempts of some rightwing posters here on Newsvine, to justify or even slyly agree with Newt Gingrich's dogwhistling to what he believes are the opinions of the white majority of voters in this country.

Newt believes that this type of campaigning will up the division in the nation, especially along racial lines, and will be the impetus that drives the white voters to the polls out of fear of this black man in the white house who he thinks they believe is 'out of his place', so to speak, for even having the gall to think that white people even want to hear anything that this President stands for, or has to say.

Newt and those in the running for the White House need to be shown, especially by white voters, that they are out of touch with the reality of the needs of this entire nation and its' nonhomogenous population. The strength of the middleclass economic power in this nation has not been based on race. It has been strong because of the willingness of all of americans, regardless of race, to be all-inclusive toward the entire American population.

I am looking to the future when this risk of predjudicial arrogance openly expressed by the Republican Party is taken to task by these same voters that they are trying to instill with fear of fellow Americans as a driving force to put them in power. For them to have the hope of gaining the White House by offending any American who is different from them is indeed the unforgivable offense. It is truly downright unGodly and unAmerican.

On to November 2012.

Phil this is all about diversionary politics. It has nothing to do with helping middle class are working class are the poor. E Pluribus unim classinm and racism and other ism are use to pull this nation apart.

remember that Newt is now a conservative catholic....

Comment #6 is the unvarnished truth. Thanks for it.

Actually, it is possible to work but be so lowly paid as to qualify for food stamps. But, Ggap, I think what Newt is saying (same thing we keep hearing from Santorum, by the way) is that blacks are just sitting back taking handouts and are too lazy to work. While whites who get assistance are really deserving people who would work if life hadn't dealt them such a bad blow. There is that underlying racist lie that too many Americans have bought into, and everytime Newt or Santorum addresses race, unemployment, poverty, public assistance or a myriad of other social issues, they pander right back to their base and those false racist assumptions.

if blacks were getting all the aid from the government they would be all living in mansions and friving lexus'

The President has yet to propose a jobs bill. For you folks weak in economics, any job that is funded by federal dollars, counts as a "negative job," actually, several of them. If the Federal government funds a job, that has the fiscal effect of removing 5 private sector jobs. In economics, as in physics, there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

The only jobs bills have been proposed by the GOP-led house, all of which have been stymied by the Senate. POTUS has done his level best to bring harm on jobs that were going to happen without government intervention....oil pipeline.

Regards,

Mike

"Negative job"?

Where do you folks come up with these absurd notions?

For you folks weak in economics, any job that is funded by federal dollars, counts as a "negative job," actually, several of them.

LOL!!!

A poignant example of how willful nescience can result in posts of stunning irony.

The only jobs bills have been proposed by the GOP-led house, all of which have been stymied by the Senate.

An obvious lie that even FauxNews refutes.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/11/white-house-pushes-for-passage-job-bill-in-face-likely-senate-defeat/

How is that working out for ya so far?

I'd say not so well...for ANYBODY!

It's working great Mike, and thanks for asking! President Obama is doing all he can for us and will do a lot more once we can get those jackass republican teabaggers out of his way.

Now then, I'm not sure why Newt Gingrich is even bothering to try pandering to us Black folks at all. What's the point really? We know who he is. Those of us in our 30's and older remember this prick from when he and other republicans tried to crucify Bill Clinton (a classic favorite of many Black Americans) back in the day over the Lewinsky affair. The sad thing is that Newt and other repubs were cheating on their wives too.

This isn't going to garner any Black votes for Gingrich I guarantee it.

Gingrich is the reason I no longer vote republican.

For the simple reason that he led the effort to set adside the vote of the people to oust Clinton.

I would NOT have voted for Clinton, had he been elidgible for a third term. Adultery is an automatic disqualifaction for elected office, as far as I'm concerned.

And, so is trying to nullify the vote of citizens. And using race to get votes.

It doesn't matter what Gingrich does or says. He cannot win. He will not ever be POTUS.

Gingrich is the reason I no longer vote republican.

For the simple reason that he led the effort to set adside the vote of the people to oust Clinton.

Kinda sad that you would let one man and one event have so much comtrol over you that you set aside your core beliefs and entire ideology over it.

I thought Bush did some stupid things. But I didn't let those stupid things control my thinking to the point that I gave up my belief in smaller government, lower taxes and a strong military.

But thanks for pointing out to all the Newt haters here that he did indeed, show some compassion where Clinton was concerned and didn't try to kick him out of office.

Ah, I see, so you don't believe that an entire political party hell-bent on throwing out the legal vote of the american people is grounds to vote for the opposition.

smaller government and lower taxes. LMAO that worked out well under Bush, didn't it. Went from a surplus toa deficit in 4 years. You go ahead, stick with those "core" beliefs.

I'll bet you think voter ID laws that prevent the elderly and minorities from voting are also a good thing.

Have a nice life, Pat.

Settle down, chaos. YOU are the one who said one man and one event had enough control over you to throw your entire political ideology to the wind....not me. I just think it's kinda sad that you let a single politician have that kind of power over you.

Has a group of black men ever lynched a southern white guy?

Yep, happens all the time. The term is called "wilding". The liberal mainstream media shies away from that term because of its association with young black males on crime sprees.

Yep, happens all the time. The term is called "wilding".

Wow. I just googled it. Why isn't there an outrage about this? Oh. I know. As we've discovered, it's "racist" to mention even slightly negative about the black community. Even if that 'something' happens to be well documented.

Sorry folks...unless you're willing to at least TALK ABOUT the problems facing any demographic...the problems will never get fixed.

MeanGene/Pat N.....lets see your links to your _______comments Please?

You don't know how to use Google?

Since I'm sure whatever site I pick with be called "biased"...you can take your pick:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=24&gs_id=2b&xhr=t&q=wilding+blacks+on+whites&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=wilding+blacks+on+whites&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=dc9072f4d1d34f4c&biw=1366&bih=546

Sorry Pat N...wilding has a meaning for white people like you and meangene....of course there was a show on MTV called "wilding out" a comedy show but since it had a black host I am sure that you two wouldn't watch it simply because of that...obviously since you couldn't link your comment to a typical rightwing site I am not offended...and not surprised. It seems that it is you couldn't at the very least link your comments to a fox, redstate, council of citizens, TP, website I should take whatever you google, bing, yahoo, to anything credible.....YEAH RIGHT...SO I apologize that I would get an intelligent link much less an intelligent conversation...so I am done....please continue spreading the rightwing rhetoric as you are told to do.

WHat the hell are you talking about DS? I gave you the google search page with MULTIPLE links for you to chose from, all of them with articles and information about wilding.

Sorry Pat N...wilding has a meaning for white people like you and meangene....

I don't answer the US Census as "white". If people can dress as the opposite sex, then I can dress as a different color and and be trans-racial. If people can be bisexual, then I can certainly be biracial. I don't especially give a damned about my race and I don't care what anybody else thinks about it either, especially not the US Census or any other jackass that asks me what race I am. It's none of their damned business. I can choose to be any race I want to be. Only Democrats care about counting noses by their colors.

of course there was a show on MTV called "wilding out" a comedy show but since it had a black host I am sure that you two wouldn't watch it simply because of that...

No, the reason I don't watch MTV is because it's false advertisement. The bastards claim to be a music channel and don't have any music, it's all talk shows and reality TV. There's that, and the fact that I limit my TV watching to three hours per month. My TV hasn't been on yet this year. I hate watching TV because it always makes me madder than Hell to look at idiots in my living room.

obviously since you couldn't link your comment to a typical rightwing site I am not offended

Do your own homework. I practically spoonfed you with the term as it is. If you're sitting at a computer and you're waiting for links to land in your lap instead of actually doing a little research for yourself, then you're part of the problem and not a part of the solution. You want somebody else to solve your issues for you, and that is the problem with America today.

Do you know what you remind me of? My purposely helpless Aunt.

Aunt: Gene! Oh, thank GOD you're here! My remote control doesn't work.

Gene: Did you try changing the batteries in the remote, Auntie?

Aunt: Oh, heaven's no! That's too technical and I don't know what size they are.

Gene: Did you look to see what size they are? They're either AA or AAA size.

Aunt: Oh, that's too technical! All those letters! Who can keep up with all of that?

Gene: Let's see the remote. Okay, AA batteries. Do you have any?

Aunt: Oh, no, I don't keep anything like that around! They're so expensive!

Gene: Yes, Auntie, they're almost 50¢ apiece now. Two of them would cost you a whole buck.

Aunt: Can you go buy me some? I'll give you money!

Gene: I've got some in my truck glove compartment I keep for my digital camera. You can have 'em.

Aunt: Thanks! Now, my computer is running slow....

Gene: *Thinking* (there is no way I'm actually related to this family...) Sure, Auntie! Let's check out what free download crap you polluted your PC with this week!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm partly to blame. If I didn't change the batteries in the remote control, then there'd be no choice but to be technologically literate. That was a true story, BTW. I've had to run over to my Aunt's house to get a freaking DVD out of her player because she couldn't figure out the eject button. That little symbol with the triangle pointing up, she didn't know what that means. Too complicated.

please continue spreading the rightwing rhetoric as you are told to do.

Told to do by whom? I live alone, I watch less than three hours of TV per month (I prefer reading), and I don't really like groups much. I'm a rugged individualist. I go hunting and fishing alone because the presence of other human beings cramps my style.

Wow.....didn't expect the Klan to take my attempt at humor as a threat and come out of the woodwork.

Is there anything you people aren't afraid of?

And BTW Gene the term wilding does NOT = lynching. Lynching is that fine southern tradition in this country where the courts are bypassed in favor of the court of public opinion. The public being a group of dimwitted rednecks who calmly and with malice aforethought walk the object of their hate to a nice big tree, rig a rope and hang the person until dead. That's a bit different than a bunch of kids being hooligans.

dimwitted rednecks

I'm curious...is the above phrase "racist"? Or is it just "bigoted"?

It's accurate!

Wow.....didn't expect the Klan to take my attempt at humor as a threat and come out of the woodwork.

The "Klan" is a Democrat organization. Look up "DIXIECRATS" if you want to see the truth about Democrats and their sordid embraces with slavery and segregation. I, like most Republicans, am a rugged indivualist. I bait my own hooks, I cast my own pole, and I clean and cook my own fish. I'm not like a Democrat who needs slave labor by either blacks or taxpayers to do my dirty work.

And BTW Gene the term wilding does NOT = lynching.

Tell that to Reginald Denny. Wilding is all about lynch mobs. I'm right and you know it.

The public being a group of dimwitted rednecks

I'm a redneck in my off time. I work on state-of-the-art multimillion dollar communications systems by day. I work on systems so complex that even the engineers who designed them don't know what they're capable of, and so when I get home after torquing my mind into a pretzel, I like being a redneck for a bit.

I've got my boat and my fishing pole. I unwind like a fishing reel, nice and simple like. I want to be a redneck from time to time. I can't be a techno-geek 24/7.

It's accurate!

So "worthless, ghetto dwelling blacks" would also be *accurate* when describing those who engage in wilding?

"worthless, ghetto dwelling blacks"

Is racist.

dwillie

"worthless, ghetto dwelling blacks"

Is racist.

and bascially a myth

http://www.proyouthpages.com/wilding.html

Wilding Journalists

Media Bias at its Ugliest

Gene, the Klan was an organization affiliated with the Democratic Party-- when the Democratic Party was primarily made up of the former antebellum gentry in the south.

People really need to get their heads around the concept of "change over time" which drives the historical narrative.

Yeah, like the change in the Republican playbook circa the late 1960's & early 1970's when they adopted the "Southern Strategy". The GOP decided to actively pursue conservative rural voters in former slave states by appealing to their mistrust of government and racist divisions in society. It's called divide and conquer and it's definitely taking the low ground!

So Gene, while you'd love to conveniently disown the Klan and some of the other nutcases your party courted and subsequently wed, they are yours now baby. How's that post honeymoon love working for the GOP? Psst, you may want to stay away from your own well water.

Many have gotten their heads around it. They just pretend not to have gotten their heads around it. For them, saying "The Klan is a Democrat organization" is really another way of saying "la la la la, I can't hear youuuu".

David Duke has been a Republican since 1989. He's also an avowed segregationist and Klan leader.

• 1989 Republican candidate for Louisiana House Of Representatives.
• 1990 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.
• 1991 Republican candidate for Governor Of Louisiana.
• 1992 Republican party Presidential Candidate.
• 1996 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate
• 1999 Republican candidate for U.S. House Of Representatives.

Actions speak louder than words Gene.

The Projects have become the modern day slave houses. You give a Republican half a chance to bulldoze public housing and that crap will be flattened in a day because it promotes dependency and servitude. I'd drive the steamroller myself to get rid of all enslavement housing. Liberals are the ones who defend crap like Section 8 to keep all the minorities nice and tidy on their assigned ghettos, barrios, slums and whatever else passes for a plantation these days.

Get rid of all public housing, end all food stamps and everything else and the Democrat-owned slaves will have no choice but to rejoice in their newfound liberties.

David Duke has been a Republican since 1989. He's also an avowed segregationist and Klan leader.

I drove by David Duke's house in New Orleans. It had been burned down, just like his chances at ever getting elected in the Republican Party as he is bar none the most hated and despicable individual this side of a jail cell. I hate that bastard and would sooner vote for Satan himself than that godless despicable piece of crap David Duke. If you think he'd get elected dog catcher in the Republican party then you have no understanding how hated that worthless puke really is.

Get rid of all public housing, end all food stamps and everything else and the Democrat-owned slaves will have no choice but to rejoice in their newfound liberties.

What about all the black people who don't live in "the projects", aren't on "food stamps", but still vote reliably Democratic? You know...the majority of the black electorate:).

What about all the black people who don't live in "the projects", aren't on "food stamps", but still vote reliably Democratic? You know...the majority of the black electorate:).

They'll be too busy putting the age-old "safety net" of family back together, the one that the welfare state tore apart. The one that has mothers driving their own daughters to apply for food stamps from the State rather than dig into her own deep pockets to help out her own flesh and blood.

You see, the Welfare State doesn't just buy the votes of the people on welfare. It also buys the votes of the people who don't have to be burdened by the kids they failed to raise properly and the people who don't have to care for elderly parents. Just throw all that burdensome crap on the faceless, nameless, bottomless pit of money called the TAXPAYER.

We used to have a real safety net until the welfare state tore it up and sold it to buy votes with.

You missed my point, which is that most black people don't live in the "projects" or get "food stamps". Most of the black people who wouldn't drive their daughters to apply for food stamps? Democrats. Most of those who do dig deep into their own pockets when the situation calls for it? Democrats:).

Gene,

I'll have to concede that a lot of incredibly embarrassed and decent Republicans wasted a lot of time and effort either trying to limit David Duke's activity in their party or cleaning up the damage he's done. The lesson here is don't ever let these idiots in the door in the first place, for any reason. A deal with the devil is never a good idea. The end does not justify the means. And it will come back to bite you in the ass.

We used to have a real safety net until the welfare state tore it up and sold it to buy votes with.

Average taxpayers pick up an expensive tab for corporate welfare expenditures. Government spending for corporate welfare programs far exceeds government spending for social programs.

1. Fact: Spending for corporate welfare programs outweighs spending for low-income programs by more than three to one: $167 billion to $51.7 billion (source: Aid for Dependent Corporations, from the Corporate Welfare Project and How Much Do We Spend on Welfare?, from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, FY 95 figures)
2. Fact: Total federal spending on a safety net for the poor costs the average taxpayer about $400 a year, while spending on corporate welfare programs costs the same taxpayer about $1400 a year. (source: CBO figures)

Corporate welfare programs are protected at the expense of the poor and powerless. In Congress, spending for the needy absorbed the majority of spending cuts, while corporate welfare spending was barely touched.

1. Fact: Over 90% of the budget cuts passed by Congress cut spending for the poor -- programs that ensure food for the needy, housing for the homeless, job training for the unemployed, community health care for the sick. (source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Bearing Most of the Burden, 1996).
2. Fact: Only 3.9% of total federal outlays go to programs that solely benefit poor people.

   Welfare programs for corporations do not play by the same rules as welfare for people. Welfare benefits for individuals and families are limited by strict eligibility requirements and time limits, while corporations get corporate welfare benefits regardless of wealth or accountability.

   1. Fact: Individuals and families must demonstrate need to receive benefits, while corporations with billions of dollars in annual income remain on the federal dole.
   2. Fact: Most social spending is in the form of discretionary spending, which is scrutinized in the annual budget negotiating process in Congress; most corporate welfare programs are in the form of tax expenditures, which go on and on since they are not subject to annual review by Congress

Average taxpayers pick up an expensive tab for corporate welfare expenditures. Government spending for corporate welfare programs far exceeds government spending for social programs.

The entire term "corporate welfare" is a bait and switch, in which liberals count taxes not collected as "spending" and when corporations aren't taxed at a rate of 100%, any money remaining with the corporations uncollected for taxes is then termed "corporate welfare".

In reality, there is no money flowing from the government to corporations, and therefore there is no such beast as "corporate welfare".

The government doesn't need the money, the government doesn't deserve the money, the taxes are already beyond confiscatory (anything over 10% is draconian and punitive) and the stupid government would just waste the loot.

Corporations spend their money more wisely than our stupid government does. I don't see any corporations wallowing in a $16 Trillion debt for no good reason.

Corporations are better stewards of money than the stupid government is, so when money stays with corporations that's a lot better than the money going to some dumb politician for a pork project or wasted on a social program this nation doesn't want or need.

baloney

Is racist.

But "dimwitted rednecks" isn't in your book?

The entire term "corporate welfare" is a bait and switch,

No, Just switching myths with facts.

It's on his website. If you really want to know, go check it out. But I suspect your question is rhetorical.

Thanks for giving me a great idea for a bumper sticker, though..."Newter Obama".

"Newter Obama".

I thought he already had been...someone said he had "no balls".

BTW, I love that Bumper sticker idea!!

..sooo... no jobs then?

..sooo... no jobs then?

(Liberal Translation): "I refuse to look at his website because I may find information there that shatters my version of reality."

Pat, I looked. Far from "information that shatters my version of reality", I just found more of the same discredited policies and GOP boilerplate that affirms my belief that the GOP is stuck in an ideological rut and won't be proposing anything of substance to get us out of the hole they created over the last 40-odd years, let along do much to strengthen any economic echelon but their elite supporters.

", I just found more of the same discredited policies and GOP boilerplate that affirms my belief that the GOP is stuck in an ideological rut

Interesting. So can you tell me what ideas Obama has? I know, I know...it's the mean ol' GOP the "blocked him" from doing anything. But that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what ideas you've heard him espouse recently to help the black community. A community that has a 30% food stamp rate and a 17% unemployment rate.

Pat, try not to be a conclusion-jumping dick, m'kay? I'm not a "liberal" (and you say that like it's a bad thing, look up the term). I went to Netwters site. He's got zilch job creation plans. He does, on the other hand, seem to have a lot of stuff to jack up corporate welfare and strip away corporate regulation.

So... no jobs, eh.

vol fan in chatt, tn
"Newter Obama".

I thought he already had been...someone said he had "no balls".

Oh highbrow right wing humor, I think. You know who has no balls? They guy who couldn't use the most awesome multi trillion dollar military they world has ever known to kill the leader of the cave dwelling Al Queda after he killed 3,000 Americans, on our soil, on his watch. Nothing says nutless like the elephants impotence of the insect who knocked him down.

.......the entire GOP are the spawn of Goebbels. Check their birth certificates from Argentina.

I almost laughed out laugh because even something like this is more thought-provoking than the most comical fiction. It sure makes even the most heated arguments of support for those such as Gingrich look somewhat suspicious.

So far, not one of those who support Gingrich or any of his fellow Republicans running for office has been able to say that what has been said about these candidates are lies.

Correction: I am actually laughing out loud!!!

Voted up as comment of the day.

Frankly, I'm amazed that the unemployment rates are as low as they are considering that most estimates have the US functional illiteracy rate between 20% and 30%.

Living in the information age as we do, functional illiteracy means unemployability. The reason why people don't have jobs is because they lack the skills needed to perform them.

No "jobs program" out of Washington D.C. is going to fix this. It took a lot of years for the education of Americans to get this bad, and it's going to take a lot of years to make it better. There's not going to be any "magic bullet" that makes functionally illiterate people suddenly literate and eminently employable.

The "racism" behind the unemployment numbers really doesn't reflect racism at all, but rather graduation rates among minority groups. 46% of Black High School students, 44% of Latinos, and 49% of Native Americans did not earn a diploma in four years.

Any honest "jobs program" is going to have to take a cold hard look at the cause, and the cause isn't pretty. The cause is a failed education, and not necessarily at the schoolhouse. Parents letting their kids drop out of school, or failing to help their kids with learning basic educational skills, are largely to blame. Illiteracy is all too often an inherited trait. Illiterate parents tend to raise illiterate kids.

Newt Gingrich knows the education system well, being an accredited history teacher himself. Any serious plan is going to have to address the dearth of education in America and include some sort of remedial schooling for the unemployable illiterates who can't fill out a job application.

It's a reason they will have to eventually bow out of the race for POTUS making way for Mitt Romney. It's already been decided...just not by us! The republicans have started two wars and wrecked the economy and adamantly refuses to raise taxes on their billionaire buddies...now we hear they make comments in a bigoted fashion. Go figure. Does that surprise anyone? Vote Democrat. Fire the bigots! It's time the people stand together whatever their race or creed and get these people out of office.

Whats an EBT card?

Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)

That's BS!!!

White Republikkkans to Gingrich: Don't shut up you racist fool.

Whats an EBT card?

LOL. One of the rabid righties on here had a field day when I asked that same question.

I guess because I'm Hispanic I'm supposed to automatically know what EBT stood for.

Just a Viner masquerading as a Newtie or Ricky.

Hell, I didn't know! Heck I'm white and an "X" republican! Lets not waist our votes. Democrat all the way.

Out of luck

Neither did I! LOL!

That is what is so funny. Apparently, I wasn't to be believed that someone "like me" didn't know what it was.

I hate acronyms....And dislike republican Ideology's. Now

I guess because I'm Hispanic I'm supposed to automatically know what EBT stood for.

Actually, the design of the EBT program is "nobody sees, nobody knows". Basically, nobody is supposed to see that there's a difference between people using Debit Cards (real money) and EBT Cards (beggar money) so as to mask the shame of the beggars among us spending our money as if it were their own.

Nevermind that you can still spot the dumbasses with EBT cards because they can't read the 10-items-or-less sign and go into the express lane with half the freaking store in their cart.

You see, we're supposed to think that EBT welfare cases are shoppers just like anybody else, but besides acting like total idiots in the store incapable of even a basic financial transaction of goods and services, they're also given away by having to pay cash for their booze and cigarettes. A real card wouldn't seperate the vices out of the total, and most people with EBT are stupid enough to drink and smoke.

EBT was created to be a smokescreen for food stamps, to breed ignorance and make the Welfare State denizens look like they're equally moneyed in the store even though they're living on the dole. Democrats want living on the dole to be shameless, seamless and normal.

Well, it's not. Trust me, I can even with casual observation in a grocery store line pick out the idiots using EBT by their bungling, by their inability to follow even the simplest of directions, by their putting aside purchases they can't buy with taxpayer money and even by the time of year it is.

This is the 1st full weekend of January. EBT cardholders will be out en masse, clogging up the lines in grocery stores with their booty-laden EBT cards but they'll spend other people's money within a week of the first of the month.

If you don't want to be bothered by the EBT pestilence, then just don't shop at stores this weekend. They'll be out of taxpayer treasures inside of a week and the last three weeks are generally safe from being inconvenienced by Food Stamp Tramps.

I make no bones about not liking the EBT program. It's stupid to give cards to a population who are basically illiterate, have no ability to budget, and will waste the cash meant for 30 days inside of a week flat. It's a stupid program and it's stupidly administered. It assumes that the recipients have fabulous budgeting skills, even though they're stone cold broke.

It would be funny if they weren't actually serious.

Yeah I know the republicans would rather have starving families living in their cars because they lost their jobs and lost their house. Ohhh wait a minute the republicans already achieved that goal. Whats next genocide because your kind (Republican) don't want to see the desperation and hunger on another Americans face?

I rest my case Out of Luck.

I guess there are NO Republican, Conservatives anywhere in this country that are unemployed and facing hard economic times and maybe for the first time ever in their lives have to help make ends meet by being on food stamps and other services until things turn around.

Not one single one.

More and more I can spot the intolerant, ignorant arrogant know-it alls by just how rude and obnoxious they are if they are inconvenienced by a family having to use EBT cards.

Frankly, they spend way too much time pointing fingers and forgetting there are a few still pointing back at them.

And again cons ignore that most people on food stamps are employed as a measly 1.3% of 310 million people, and a large portion who receive foods stamps are children and elderly ...

"Beggar- money"? Wow. Does it get any more hateful than that? Such a christian attitude. Sorry. The vitriol offends me so deeply I cannot think straight. I'm going to have to get off of NW for a while. Ugly. Ugly. Ugly.

MeanGene-3334839

during the time that i was looking for employmenti got numerous crazy letters to tell me i was not qualified for jobs that i was clearly qualified for. i got one letter from a a particularly racist human relations person for underwriters lab saying that i was not qualified for a file clerk job after i received my first associates degree. the job was given to a caucasian female in high school. i received the highest score on a county test to work for the vta (valley transportation agency). the test was regiven and i got a letter saying that i had flunked the second test. how a person goes from getting the highest score to flunking the next test i don't know how it works.

i found out about a job opening at kaiser hospital on santa teresa bl. in san jose, ca. in the maintenence department. i went to alpply for the job. i was told the way to see thesupervisor was to get on his appointment list

i asked how to get on his appointment list. i was told it was on his desk

so

i couldn't see the supervisor unless i got on the list, but the list was on his desk so i would have to see him to get on the list. double jeopardy, huh?

i went to the area supervisor at the kaiser hospital on keily boulevard in santa clara. i was directed to her by a person in human relations. i walked up to her, begged her pardon (she was speaking to a caucasian gentleman) and asked her if i could get a little of her time to make my complaint about the situation at the kaiser hospital on santa teresa.

she turned around and loudly said "it would help if you had a high school diploma" and laughed.

i replied that i was the valedictorian of my high school class, had three associates degrees and was working on my bachelors degree.

she got red faced as heck. you could see the anger in her eyes.

i had to get a card during that time. i was not alone. rampant racism in hiring and promotion holds back many and thwarts many people's efforts to rise above their beginnings.

your gross grenade bomb trolling posts are the reason that you aren't to be taken seriously, really.

EBT was created to be a smokescreen for food stamps, to breed ignorance and make the Welfare State denizens look like they're equally moneyed in the store even though they're living on the dole. Democrats want living on the dole to be shameless, seamless and normal.

EBT was created to reduce costs and abuse of the foodstamp program.

Thanks Firey.

Kappa

No surprise that A white felon is as likely to get a job a qualified African American is up for even today...institutionalized bigotry bleeds out of the system slower than trickle down economics distributes it benefits to a population...

Actually, the design of the EBT program is "nobody sees, nobody knows". Basically, nobody is supposed to see that there's a difference between people using Debit Cards (real money) and EBT Cards (beggar money) so as to mask the shame of the beggars among us spending our money as if it were their own.

Actually Pat N says blacks have known foodstamp issues.

Ooops@ masking the shame.

Unemployment and food stamps are national issues, the president is the president of the whole country. The only reason to single out blacks regarding a national issue in front of a white audience, is racism.

Actually Pat N says blacks have known foodstamp issues.

Continuing to put words in other people's mouths, I see.

Actually, Pat N says that while the individual number of whites on foodstamps is larger than the individual number of blacks...(because there are more whites in this country than blacks)...a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of blacks are forced to use foodstamps. They also are having a harder time finding jobs, as is evidenced by the BLS.

If you want to conltinue to ignore these problems and pretend like they don't exist, rather than address them and fix them...that's certainly your perogative. But I can't for the life of me, figure out why you want to continue the status quo in the black community and continue acting like everything is just peachy and they don't need some help.

What has Obama done for blacks, again?

The only reason to single out blacks regarding a national issue in front of a white audience, is racism.

What part of: "If the NAACP invited me to speak..." did you miss? You DO understand that one of the reasons for the NAACP's very existence is to address problems effecting the black community, right?

Let me guess...you also feel that if NOW invited him to speak, it would be "sexist" of him to address issues effecting women.

Pat N you are correct that he offered to accept an intivation from the NAACP...."now"....Gingrich has turned down the invitation a couple of times before to attend a convention. It makes sense that the black community would take his offer with a grain of salt. Nothing prevents him talking to a minority audience on his own but in this case he IMO disingeniously offered to appear at their convention out of the blue...it is what politicians do although surprising coming from Gingrich in a state that has a very small percentage of black voters.

THat being said I would like the NAACP to invite him as well as the other candidates. It would be telling to hear the republican candidates responses in a forum that would ask questions not being asked in the media. Do I think it would it be in their best interest....NO...I think it would hurt way more than it would if they just stayed in their comfort zone.

Nothing prevents him talking to a minority audience on his own

Good point.

Minority audience ......... would that be white people who get a low paying job instead of living off housing assistance, wic, snap and other programs because they have not yet learned to play the welfare game?????

How can anyone take this bid seriously when his camp is so woefully inept as to not file to get on the VA primary

Maybe they weren't privy enough to the Southern Strategy so he chose to go deeper into the South?????

Maybe Newt doesn't think he needs a solid campaign machine....he just thought the entire state of Virginia would just automatically vote for him.

Including Democrats.

Because, yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus and Newt is that good.

;)

he just thought the entire state of Virginia would just automatically vote for him.

hmmm...would that be like black people voted for the President "only" because he was black?/s

LOL

Except Obama is half-white.....just a minor detail people sometimes "overlook"

Except Obama is half-white

Lets ask Newt at the next NAACP conference (if he truly agrees) about the one drop rule of black blood Mr Southern Democrat.....WINK WINK

Ooo! Lets.

LOL.

I would pay good, good money to watch the heads explode.

Obama is a half white and Gingrich is an arrogant half wit.

LOL MountainMike.

He's a half-wit historian!

Get it right!

;)