Stanek weekend question: Can we discuss minority abortion genocide without being called racist?
Maya at Feministing wrote on September 20:
Wow. We’ve seen horribly racist anti-choice ads targeting African American and Latina women in recent years, but this might take the cake. Native American students at the University of New Mexico organized a protest after graphic anti-abortion posters popped up on campus that read “Abortion Extinction. Today, an Indian boy was killed the Indian way. Hey ya hey!”
Here’s news video…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoPB5zoLFSc&sns=em[/youtube]
Weekend question: Is it possible for pro-lifers to attempt to educate about the genocide of abortion among minority races without being accused of racism? If so, how?
Second question: Do you consider the pro-life poster targeting Native Americans acceptable?
Sep.22, 2012 7:20 am |
Weekend question |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It’s probably not possible for pro-lifers to discuss minority abortion genocide without being called racist. However, it’s also not possible to be a Caucasian man without being called racist. So if one is not being racist, who cares? Just another false accusation.
But why talk about minority abortion genocide? Let’s just talk about abortion in general and make our true accusations of murder (whether bloody or not).
A good way to avoid being called racist is to not do racist things.
It is often asserted that the black community is the target of an abortion genocide. However, the birth rate of black women is slightly over 2 babies per woman which means that this group is reproducing at a rate that will keep its population going.
However, it is also true that a disproportionate number of black women get abortions which means that a disproportionate number of black women have unwanted pregnancies.
An abortion usually means a pregnancy that was an “oopsie” rather than the result of a woman eagerly looking forward to having a baby. Why are unwanted pregnancies more common among black women?
After this is answered, we must work to ensure that those who get pregnant are those who are ready and willing to carry pregnancies to term and, hopefully, raise babies.
When pregnancy is greeted with joy, abortion is to a large extent irrelevant.
A birth rate of slightly over 2 babies per Black woman results in decreasing population. Blacks in the U.S. are not holding their own population as a percentage of the total.
What’s wrong with Black people becoming more numerous if they want to make babies?
Why are the leftie elites adamant to control their populations?
In my humble and soon to be attacked position…I think the key is caring about the African American community FIRST, and calling attention to abortion as a component of that.
I remember getting really upset at PETA a while back – they were campaigning hard that Jesus loved all beings, they tried to make the case that he was a Vegan, and that GOOD Christians should be vegetarians. Now, besides from sloppy logic, I was upset because they weren’t concerned about Christ – they were pretending that Christ was their primary motive while quite frankly, they didn’t care about anything other than what advanced their own specific cause.
(attack dogs, get ready) – My opinion…the african american community has a lot of issues, abortion being one of them. I believe that there is a perception out there that says that when conservatives see african americans, especially those that are lower income, the perception is that they are lazy, don’t deserve the various food programs and housing programs that have existed for years, but deserve plenty of funding if it is in the form of prison cells for those dealing or doing any drugs. So when pro-lifers, who are generally seen as conservative, say “here’s what we think of you and the policies that we support – but we really are concerned about abortions, so we’re going use your race to make a point about abortion – though we don’t want to talk about any other issues the african american community cares about” – I think people are going to take issue with that.
The concern needs to be about minority communities first with the goal of understanding and helping those communities so that the pro-life message appears to be genuine.
If people from Europe came over today and posted big signs in my yard about being better for the environment, I’d say “you aren’t one of me, you don’t care about me, you’re just trying to sell me something that I’m not buying”.
Just my opinion – attack away.
Hey Tyler,
I’m trying to find another way of expressing the ideas begun on the thread on the transgender person. One of the problems with language (especially the written kind), things or events tend to be in a more ‘fixed’ state than the ‘fluidity’ that is normal for all life. So an accusatory label fits if the person is also ‘fixed’ in ‘maturity’. Labels like: ‘baby-killer’, or ‘racist’, or ‘troll’ are things that-do-not-stick (like teflon) for a person in identity-transition.
‘Abortion’ then is a role-playing word and that does not ‘stick’ (believed by young folks) but abortion is not about role, but about ‘self-identity’ (as Carla attests). Matured folks say the word ‘abortion’ and know its very much one part of self-identity. The same word connotes a whole different set-of-truths for a role-player: rebel, young, feminist-supporter, etc.
Perhaps the word ‘grass’ may serve as an example. It can mean very different things, but is the same word. Is this understanding even considered?
it’s not possible to be a white american without being called a racist.
I strongly disagree with the pro-abort language that pro-lifers are “targeting” some minority population. It makes it seem that no pro-lifers are racial minorities. In reality, non-white pro-lifers are an active, important part of this movement. In the liberal, pro-abort world, however, all blacks are dumb children who are “targeted” by whites, instead of people with minds of their own.
Uh, yeah, that ad about the Indian abortion wasn’t racist because it pointed out the disparity in abortion rates. If you can’t see why it’s problematic… I just don’t know what to say to that.
I think it’s possible to discuss the rates of abortion in the minority community with reasonable people without accusations of racism, but not the way that pro-lifers tend to try currently. The Sanger quotes and hyperbole are not going to get through to many people in my opinion. I personally don’t see any evidence of a deliberate “genocide” and targeting of minorities, I do see some targeting of low income people (which minority groups disproportionately are affected by). And I think Ex made some excellent points too, thought I don’t agree with all of it.
Also, in regards to a couple comments, where in the world is this self-pitying “people are mmmeaannn because I’m white” thing coming from? Everyone thinks I am white and I have never had much of a problem!
As a 40 Days for Life participant, I am appalled by this sign and deeply disappointed by the very poor “spokesperson” who yelled from behind a sheet of paper. Developing positive relationships with our college campuses and the media are so very important in building a culture of life. Through conversation, comes conversion. More lives can be saved with information about fetal development, pregnancy resources, and discussing the very painful impact of abortion on women. This sign and the accompanying “spokesperson” were not only inappropriate and ineffective, but deeply damaging to the pro-life ministry, alienating an entire campus of young adults. Just think if these very bright, articulate, compassionate young leaders could have been encouraged to be pro-life advocates! I agree with David Bereit, this event does NOT represent the 40 Days for Life.
As for the “Native American” ad (here in Oklahoma, we just call ourselves “Indian”), yes, I think that particular ad is offensive and racist. I am half white, and half Indian.
I don’t see how being AGAINST killing of minority babies could be considered racist…
Wouldn’t you be racist if you were FOR killing minority babies?
Again, the pro-abort “logic” baffles me.
Try: “If killing kids ain’t cool, abortion sure ain’t cool!”
Ex-GOP, actually what you said makes a lot of sense. I see your point and agree to some extent.
I don’t get the Indian ad. I just don’t get it. It seems racist but I am not sure what they were trying to convey in the first place.
Ex-GOP,
Yeah, we’re so unconcerned about minorities that we want more of them to live.
The “Hey ya hey” sign was a bit hysterical and taunting. The cold, hard truth is sufficient.
Why would minority women have a disproportionate number of unwanted pregnancies?
I had to wait til the end of the video before I found that ’40 days for life’ disavowed any connection with the poster which only confirmed what I discerned from the get go.
The poster represents the bigottted and sterotypical view that the ‘dead babies r us’ mob wants to project of people who disagree with them.
It denigrates the victims of abortion more than it identifies the purveyors of pre-natal homicide.
I have never met anyone who identifies themselves as ‘pro-life’ who would produce or make a poster like that.
Ex-RINO says: June 10, 2012 at 11:08 pm “For the record, I have three kids, my wife and I would never ever have considered an abortion, and I’m against it as I equate it to murder.”
Ex-RINO says: June 11, 2012 at 7:56 am“…at the end of the day, I’m more likely than not to vote democrRAT…”
Ex-RINO says September 6, 2012 at 8:41pm “I’ve actually started to seriously think about not voting this election.”
Ex-RINO says September 9, 2012 at 8:27pm “I’ve far from decided what I’m going to do this election… I can’t vote for Romney. But beyond that, I’m still deciding.”
Ex-RINO says: September 16, 2012 at 10:08 am “And they [democrRATs] are winning.”
Ex-RINO says: September 22, 2012 at 10:55 am
Ex,
Is that really you or has one of your young chilren commandeered your keyboard?
“I believe that there is a perception out there that says that when conservatives see african americans, especially those that are lower income, the perception is that they are lazy, don’t deserve the various food programs and housing programs that have existed for years, but deserve plenty of funding if it is in the form of prison cells for those dealing or doing any drugs.”
The prison cells are built for convicted criminals and they are not custom made to accomodate felons of only ethnicity.
“Socialism, in general, has a record of failure so blantant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” Thomas Sowell
Now you can go sit in the corner and pout and indulge your hurt feelings with a pity party.
or - “Abortion is way past ‘cool’ …. all the way to ‘cold’!”
Ken – good to see you – if you have anything constructive to say, especially regarding the actual question at hand, I’ll be happy to give you some thoughts.
Is it possible for pro-lifers to attempt to educate about the genocide of abortion among minority races without being accused of racism? If so, how?
No. Liberals will never stop FALSELY ’accusing’ conservatives of being ‘racist’ and ‘racists’.
Do you consider the pro-life poster targeting Native Americans acceptable?
Is the pope, catholic? [That means NO.]
The poster is NOT pro-life. It is first and foremost a gross representation of a bigots distorted view of any ethnicity but their own.
The problem with the poster is it ‘targets’ [think ‘crosshairs’] an ethnic group the way Maragaret Sanger ‘targeted’ those whom she viewed as ‘human weeds’.
That’s a pretty convenient non-answer Ken.
“I’m sure they aren’t really pro-life”.
Can’t you recognize that there are people within the movement that do things the right way, and do things the wrong way?
And what about answering the question?
EX,
If you have comprehended anything I have posted on this thread then you would know I have addressed both the questions that were posed and I responded to your predictable lament about how ‘conservatives’ are percieved.
I find your expressions of concern disingenuine.
I have, for the past three months ridden the city bus twice a day, five days a week. I make it a point to learn the names of the bus drivers and the names of the passengers who are regulars and who speak english. I even try to converse in Spanish, but my ability is limited.
As a lightly pigmented guy, I am in the minority. What I have observed is that people who are riding the bus at 5am have demonstrated the capacity and the desire to suceed, regardless of their ethnicty.
In the afternoon at 1pm, there are a lot more derelicts because they have finallly sobered up and have rolled out of bed and made their way to the bus station. Unfortunately, most of them are ethnic minorities and most of them are ‘black’. ‘Black’ is not to be confused with ‘african’. The ‘african’ emmigrants are truly ‘african-americans’ and they do not want to be associated with the ‘black’ sub-culture because they fully recognize the dysfunction that is rampant there.
There is one gentleman, James, from Uganda who rides the train in the morning. I love to visit with him about his lifes experience, his family, his job. I discoverd we have acquaintances in common among the ‘african’ community in Fort Worth. I told him I was at a Ugandan’s wedding and James knew the groom and two of the guests by aname that I described meeting.
There is Maria, from Chihuahua, Mexico who rides the bus with me every morning. She fully bi-lingual and if I owned a business I would want her to work for me in some administrative capacity.
There is Roberto from Queretero, Mexico. He is a ‘documented alien’. He only speaks Spanish but we visit and pray for each other while we are waiting for the bus.
There is Ysinga, who’s chosen/christian name is Ruth, from west africa, [cant remember the country] who is attending culinary school. I gave her my daughters cell phone but she has not called yet. I was hoping to introduce her to my son. She is a lovely lady and will make some Godly man a wonderful wife.
There is Roberto the bus driver from Spain, who speaks Spanish, English, French, Russian and and German. He drives the afternoon bus and there is 10 minute wait stop to keep the bus on schedule. Roberto is a gregarious fellow who loves to talk about his wife’s ‘honey do’ list.
There is the Viet Namese medical assistant who works in pediatrics at children’s hospital.
There is Rodgers, the shuttle drive from East Texas. He is ‘black’ but has not been tainted by the dysfumction so pervalent in the ‘black sub-culture’. Maybe it is because he grew up in the country.
My Japanese-Canadian wife, docuemented alien and mother of our five anchor babies, just informed she and some of the kids are going to visit the Whitehursts, a black family, with whom we have been friends for years. Both husband and wife are veterans of the military and college graduates. He grew up in chicago and she grew up in south florida. They have three sons, one of whom, Joshua, is my son’s best friend and whom I sometimes refer to as my son and whom I would be pleased to call my son-in -law.
My friend and co-worker Roger is from the Philipines. I love him like a brother. We pray for each other. I wish I could get him a job someplace else where he could better exploit his earning potential as a welder.
So away with your pathetic drivel about racist conservatives.
Ken -
Great post and great information.
Think of the faces of the conservative movement for a second – Romney, Ryan, Gingrich, Paul, Bachmann – do you think most of them even know what a bus is?
EX,
I suppose I should befriend a lesbian Muslim arab to round out my credentials as truly egalitrarian [does not refer to an armenian].
This sign is, IMO, terrible. It’s hard to tell what message they are trying to convey (higher abortion rates among Indian women, I’m guessing). It also has these offensive cultural stereotypes that take away from what should be offending the person that reads it–the loss of a human life.
As far as talking about minority abortion, I agree that there is probably no way to completely avoid accusations of racism, but there are better ways of going about it than these students did. I think Ryan Bomberger and the Radiance Foundation, for one, do a great job of this.
Also, Ken, I think I need to start riding my city bus. Sounds like a lot of interesting stories.
I am Hispanic. I see my white friends in good faith, love, concern and conscience really care for those seeking or who have had abortions. They are labeled racists. I am a woman and called a “woman hater.” both Hispanics and blacks are called traitors and Uncle Toms. I care not if they call us that anymore.
FYI the Indian poster was a bit weird.
EX-RINO,
I could offer the name of five prominent progressives and ask the same question and it would prove nothing, no matter how much or little they had ever placed foot on a bus.
I do not represent all conservatives or pro-lifers, nor do I purport to.
My point, if i even had one, is that I am not some ivory towered intellectual who only knows what he has read or heard/been told.
The only claim that would be more absurd than claiming there are no conservatives who are ‘racist’ would be claiming there are no liberals/progressives who are bigots.
Ken – maybe I missed a quote that I wrote in my sleep or something – but I never claimed you represented all pro-lifers, or claimed that you could ever boil down an entire group of people down to just one person.
What I talked about is perceptions. If you disagree with the perceptions, that is fine. It seems obvious though that some of these perceptions exist.
TexasGal,
?habla español?
The problem with the black family in America today isn’t number of children. It is that children are being raised by over-burdened single mothers. This leads to all sorts of problems in and of itself. For example, the vast majority of imprisoned rapists — 70-80% — were raised in a home without a Dad.
Priority should be given to ensuring that black babies are born within happy and stable marriages. The majority are currently born outside marriage. Here you can kill two birds with one stone. If a woman is happily married when she gets pregnant, she is MUCH less likely to abort than a single woman. Thus, a campaign to promote marriage automatically works to reduce abortion.
EX-RINO,
Take a position, stand your ground and defend it.
You present a point or ask a question in a mealy mouthed way then crawfish when ‘you’ are challenged.
Don’t give us the ‘some people say’.
The some people can come here and make their own case.
If you do not posses your own cajones then I am sure you can find a surgeon somewhere who will fit you with a pair in the size and color of your choice.
Don’t evenbother asking Harry Reid. That cupboards bare.
Larry Sinclair says b o has a set.
b o’s not using them.
Jesse Jackson has already expressed a desire to do the harvesting.
If you’re really interested in poderoso see Hillary Clinton, she got slick willies in algores lock box along with your social security.
Ken -
Fine – the head of your party, the face of the conservative movement just said that half of the country thinks of themselves as “victims”. So conservatives want to ride into the inner cities and into minority communities and say “hey, we’re here to help. We generally think you are lazy and at 100% fault for the situation you are in – we hate paying for food programs and your unemployment, and we want to do whatever we can to take your health care away as well – because quite frankly, we’d like a guy making millions of dollars to be able to leave enough income for his grandkid’s grandkids to survive off of. But hey, you have too many abortions, so you need to change your behavior because you’re having a holocaust in your own backyard. We’re here to help you by passing some laws, and then getting back in our cars and getting as far away from you as we can”.
Is that better?
When I address this issue of poor and too many children, I ask the following:
“How many children did your Grandma or Great-Grandma have?”
The answer may range from 6 to 12 or more. My response would be a face palm with “She must have been rich!!! Section 8 only allows 2 persons to a bedroom. That means she had a 4 to 7 (for 12 kids + 2 parents) bedroom house. WOW!!!” They laugh and the point is made especially for those who had poor ancestors.
Might also talk about “Little House on the Prairie’ and why is was a little house. Pa had to cut down the trees, turn them into boards, etc. No electric tools. He only had Ma and the girls to help. No strong boys. Would point out that if I were to build a house it would be very little. If fact I would probably live under a tree. Knowing myself, I would not even climb that tree. Might break a nail. LOL!
“So when pro-lifers, who are generally seen as conservative, say “here’s what we think of you and the policies that we support – but we really are concerned about abortions, so we’re going use your race to make a point about abortion – though we don’t want to talk about any other issues the african american community cares about” – I think people are going to take issue ”
I see your point, and I think this is along the same lines, roughly, as the infamous “pro-lifers don’t care about babies after they’re born ” slogan. Ya know, when pro-life people are working towards life and against abortion, we are known as pro-lifers. When we work at food pantries, shelters, give money to charities, adopt, help children, support single moms, and volunteer time, talent, and money doing any number of things to help born people, we are called by other labels, but we are still pro-life. Do we need to wear I AM PRO-LIFE buttons just so we get “credit”? We use the terms that are salient to the context. If we are not defending the life of the preborn at the moment, why would we label ourselves that way?
I could go on … But I’ll just add “hey ya hey” is more than a little borderline. I’d really like it if after people talk about Italians, they added “badda boom, badda bing” or something – in the context of abortion.
Ken, I’m not sure you can talk about the “dysfunctional black sub-culture” in the same post you claim you are not a racist.
A friend of mine, who is black, talks about the “dysfunctional black sub-culture” all the time, Hal. Is he a racist, too?
Edit to add: My friend is usually referring to urban culture…I think that is what Ken meant.
Kate, i bet your friend doesn’t bring up race as much as Ken does.
But,. perhaps he is. I haven’t read anything he has written, but I have read Ken’s drivel for years.
HAL,
Well I am sure and I sure as heck did.
Comimg from you that uncertainty is understandable.
But your point is taken and I should have mentioned the dysfunction inherent in the ‘white trash’ sub culture.
I warn my kids to stay away from those folk as well.
The reason I bring up ‘race’when I do is to annoy hyper sensitive white folk who believe only white people can be racist, except for white folk like them.
WEEKEND QUESTION:
Is it possible for pro-lifers to attempt to educate about the genocide of abortion among minority races without being accused of racism? If so, how?
Answer: As long as there are people with agendas and are intellectually dishonest, the short answer is: No. The accusers in the cited instance have a pathetic argument.
Hal says:
Ken, I’m not sure you can talk about the “dysfunctional black sub-culture” in the same post you claim you are not a racist.
I cannot speak for Ken but I do see a black culture decimated by Great Society programs…the out of wedlock birth rate is 70% and abortion rates put the black population on a path to numerical decline, and there is more than a 50 % drop-out rate among high schoolers in Chicago. If that is not “dysfunctional” in its most literal sense, I do not know what is. Black pastors in the inner city churches point these things out all of the time…are they being racist or is it racist only when a non-black points it out? It would seem if it is the latter that in itself is inherently a racist accusation.
Ken
“Fine – the head of your party, the face of the conservative movement just said that half of the country thinks of themselves as “victims”. ”
EX-RINO,
Please point out anywhere that I have identifed myself as a ‘republican’ or claimed the republican as my party.
I was once active in republican politics, but I never found my identity in the republican party.
If did not identify with the republican party, then I cannot now be labeled a RINO.
Not because I am ashamed of the republican party, but because I have experienced the superficiality of politics and the condescending attitudes of those who not only think they know better but, believe they are better, than the peons who do their bidding.
[Please do not assert that democRATs are above this kind of behavior. Nothing is beneath them.]
Romeny is certainly not a ‘conservative’ unless you compare him to b o.
Romney is not the face of the ‘conservative’ movement.
Romney is a moderate to liberal politician.
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it — that that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. … These are people who pay no income tax. … [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Is there something ‘wrong’ in the moral or ethical sense in what Romney claims?
Is there something factually incorrect in what Romney claims?
If Allen West, Clarence Thomas or Mia Love said it would the left still scream racism?
It is not Romneys job to worry about whether or not these people vote for him. They are not relevant to his success or failure. Romney has to concern himself with motivating the other 57% to get out and vote not only for him but for other republicans.
Patty says: September 22, 2012 at 5:58 pm
Patty,
I won’t go into minute detail but in the 80’s as part of a christian community we helped each other build log homes from trees harvested off the property we purchased. Some of the logs we sawed into boards and then ripped it to desired dimension.
One of my neighbors salvaged old cedar snags that had been washed into a lake after extraordinarily heavy rains and then used the rounds from those logs to make cedar shakes for his roof.
We lived off the grid with no electricity or phone for several years. Our water came from a community spring.
Some of my former neighbors are still living in that community.
The ’tree huggers’ called us developers. We are still laughing, but not to the bank. We did it all mortgage free, but only by HIS grace.
Thank you JESUS
“Romney has to concern himself with motivating the other 57%”
57%+47%=104% I think you meant to say the other 53%.
Is there something ‘wrong’ in the moral or ethical sense in what Romney claims?
Is there something factually incorrect in what Romney claims?
Yes.. It’s wrong to state that Obama’s supporters don’t take responsibility for their own lives, or that those people who don’t pay taxes won’t be voting for Romney.
I take responsibility for my life and I pay a lot of taxes. Yet, I’m not voting for Romney.
Hal, I interpreted Romney’s remarks differently. I think he was referring to the 47% who want free stuff. You know, like free contraception and free abortion. And when you want something for free, you arbitrarily claim that you have a “right” to it, or that it’s “health care”. There are people from very poor to very rich who demand that the government give them free stuff, not as part of a safety net but just because they feel entitled to it. These are the Obama voters who are, frankly, a waste of time to even bother trying to reason with.
Wow. That ad is so messed up. “being killed the Indian way?” What the…?! And “Hey ho hey” or whatever?!?! What, abortion is flippant now? Sickening.
But why not talk about abortion being wrong in all cases? Because, as pro-lifers, it doesn’t matter if the babies being killed are white or black or pink with purple polka dots, they’re human beings with intrinsic value. That’s why it’s wrong. Just focus on saying, “Hey, that’s a baby you’ve got there and abortion kills that child. Plus, it’s going to ruin your life and NOT fix your problems, so don’t get an abortion.” It covers all races and situations.
But yeah, no matter what, pro-lifers will probably be called racists. It seems to be a bit of a default answer of pro-aborts and liberals when all else fails.
Hal wrote, “It’s wrong to state that Obama’s supporters don’t take responsibility for their own lives, or that those people who don’t pay taxes won’t be voting for Romney. I take responsibility for my life and I pay a lot of taxes. Yet, I’m not voting for Romney.”
Mr. Romney had said, “There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what…”
I think Hal has just forecast that only 47 percent of the people will vote for President Obama in the coming election. That wasn’t the president’s prediction, but it’s Hal’s.
57%+47%=104% I think you meant to say the other 53%
Nah. That extra 4% are included in the 47% who will be voting for Obama no matter what. They’re Mickey Mouse, Adolf Hitler, deceased voters, and house pets.
“Nah. That extra 4% are included in the 47% who will be voting for Obama no matter what. They’re Mickey Mouse, Adolf Hitler, deceased voters, and house pets.”
LOL! :)
I’m not sure where the 47% that Romney is talking about came from. Is it from a poll or what? And I think its quite a spurious accusation to say that 47% of Americans are looking for a free ride.
Jack Borsch said, “I think its quite a spurious accusation to say that 47% of Americans are looking for a free ride.”
I don’t. And apparently President Obama doesn’t, either. After all, the life of Julia was part of his campaign. I should note that Mr. Romney didn’t use the words “free ride”, but I guess they’re a fair summary of his remarks.
I would agree that the remarks were foolish, even if they weren’t intended for a wide audience. They won’t help his campaign.
Also, Jack, take a look at Ex-GOP’s remark to Ken on September 22 at 5:40 pm, and you’ll see that Ex-GOP actually does believe that minority communities are entitled to the civil government’s help. He refers to food and welfare (unemployment) programs as if they are something needy citizens have a right to. He talks about taking “their health care away.” There was a time when the poor American would have rather starved than accept help from the civil government. Times have changed.
And, as Ex-GOP implies, I do believe that poverty in America is mainly a cultural problem. That is, as Ex-GOP says I believe, Americans (generally speaking) need to change their behaviour. For example, the poor should start doing the jobs that only illegal immigrants currently do. And the rich should take the lead of that great philanthropist, Mitt Romney, who–if you believe his tax returns–has not only paid his fair share of taxes, 35%, but also given enormous amounts, even in terms of his own enormous income, to charity. He did not do so under compulsion, to waste it in the black hole of the American “treasury”; the only compulsion he might have felt was ecclesiastical, the tithe required by his Mormon faith.
As John Podhoretz wrote, “The release of these tax records leaves no doubt about one thing: Mitt Romney is an extraordinarily, remarkably, astonishingly generous man. A good man. Maybe even a great man.”
The 47% isn’t about “who wants free stuff” – 47% is a common stat out there of people who don’t typically owe federal income tax. These people do pay taxes – payroll taxes to medicare and SS – sales taxes, some pay property taxes – but they don’t pay federal income taxes.
Who are these people? Romney thinks they are folks with a victim mentality- lazy people who should work harder – the reality is a good chunk of them are elderly or disabled. Another large chunk are students, who end up being taxpayers later on.
There are people though who end up with no federal taxes – I’ll give a quick profile of a family I did the taxes for a few years ago. They were married with two kids – he was a youth pastor, she did day care and worked part time as paid nursery staff at a large church. They both were low earners and because they had two kids, the earned income credit kicked in and dramatically altered their tax numbers.
They weren’t victims. They worked somewhere between 80-100 hours a week combined – not looking for handouts – though the EIC was there for them, boosted their income, and helped them make ends meet.
Jon – I’m going to change the dynamic a little bit of your question and respond.
The government, through the tax code and rules and regulations have all sorts of places where they say they are going to make a decision that negatively impacts the federal budget. Investments, loopholes, entitlements – but these are all places where the government says “we are going to forego revenue because we think it makes sense”
Food stamp programs
Oil subsidies
Earned Income Credit
Unemployment wages
Tax free zones
Capital gains taxes
When we look at the budget then, what do we think makes sense? Where are we willing to give these breaks? What is interesting about your response is that you seem very bothered by the fact that a family of four might need assistance feeding their family. Why is it virtuous to let ones family starve? You seem to long for a day where people would simply let their family starve rather than seek assistance. Where were these days you long for – and as a father myself, I’d say those parents should have been thrown in prison for child neglect rather than praised in some internet post.
Jon – there are people who work the system. Heck, 4,000 MILLIONAIRES a year are in the 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes. But actually look at the demographics of people who are in that 47% – and tell me who should starve – who we should say we won’t help because they should get a third job. And tell me if it is more important, from a budget standpoint, to teach them a lesson so that we can maintain things like low capital gains taxes and oil subsidies.
Jon -
On Romney’s taxes – let me remind you of what he said a couple of months ago:
“I don’t pay more than are legally due, and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don’t think I’d be qualified to become president, I’d think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.”
Romney went back on this, and knowing his 2011 taxes would be under heavy watch, he upped his contributions, paid taxes on his sons nine figure trust funds, and did whatever he could, including paying more than he owed, just to hit the 13% mark (35%?).
On his charities – went to his tax returns – in 2011, he had $1,330,199 in charitable giving – over $1.1 million went to the mormon cult – the tyler foundation in Mass. got most of the rest.
Capital gains…… what you get when you risk the money, that you already paid taxes on, which is used by business people to build and produce, and employ people.
People who don’t like business, building, production and employment hate capital gains, and hate that lower tax rate which incentivizes the risk taking.
People who love big government and top down control hate the Romneys for giving ~30 percent of their income to private charity, (which is so much more efficient than government).
To the leftie projectionists who assign their own bigotry to others, and support the social programs which hold people in the thrall of the government: it’s time for us to turn off your funds. See what you can borrow from the Chinese, once they find out that you can’t pay it back.
Who wants an education? See Runaway Slave, (C.L. Bryant), and hear or read Weapon of ASS Destruction, (Alfonzo Rachel).
Pharmer -
One note – on capital gains, you don’t pay taxes twice on the money – you pay taxes on the net. So if you invest $50, and it rises to $100 – you don’t pay capital gains taxes on the $100 – you pay it on the net of $50. Does that make sense?
“However, the birth rate of black women is slightly over 2 babies per woman which means that this group is reproducing at a rate that will keep its population going.”
This is true, but only due to the higher birthrate of immigrant blacks. Blacks whose grandparents were born in the U.S.A. aka African Americans have a tfr below 2.0.
“One note – on capital gains, you don’t pay taxes twice on the money – you pay taxes on the net. So if you invest $50, and it rises to $100 – you don’t pay capital gains taxes on the $100 – you pay it on the net of $50. Does that make sense?”
People object because when you invest $50 you risk losing it. Does the government give you anything if you lose your %50? No, and that is fine, but they tax you the same on risky investments as they do on guaranteed investments like bank accounts. Now the Fed give banks the money to lend, so banks pay nothing for capital instead of having to pay interest to depositors.
Hippie –
You are incorrect. For both gains and losses in investments, it affects your taxes. If you make $50, it increases your taxes because it is a capital gain. If you lose $50, it decreases your taxes because it is a capital loss. If you lose a LOT of money, you can even spread it across multiple years to decrease your taxes later on.
Yeah, that only helps people who are have enough to owe taxes. If you are retired and selling stuff that you lost money on, well too bad. So, people with a lot invested can get tax breaks on their losses. People with less invested effectively can’t. Meanwhile inflation means they are always losing purchasing power.
Hippie – Losses can carry over – so if a person can’t take the full amount, they can carry it over to future years.
I’d be interested to know the number of Americans a year that have capital gains losses and less than $3k in income to set those losses against.
Heck, 4,000 MILLIONAIRES a year are in the 47% who don’t pay federal income taxes.
And MOST of those types of millionaires who don’t pay taxes are Democrat. Flaming example #1 is Jeffery Immelt; head of president Obama’s council on Jobs and Competitiveness. An unholy alliance:
http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Truth actually makes an excellent point here – she does make a mistake in that she says that Immelt didn’t pay taxes – I don’t believe that is true – but GE as a corporation didn’t pay any taxes because of so many corporate loopholes.
So we’re all up in arms about old people and the disabled not paying taxes, yet turn a blind eye to major corporations that lobby for loopholes so that they can avoid corporate taxes.
Terrible.
JDC says: September 22, 2012 at 9:53 pm
“57%+47%=104% I think you meant to say the other 53%.”
JDC,
Thank you for correcting my math error.
xalisae says: September 22, 2012 at 11:52 pm
“Nah. That extra 4% are included in the 47% who will be voting for Obama no matter what. They’re Mickey Mouse, Adolf Hitler, deceased voters, and house pets.”
X-ceptional woman
Thank you for explaining my math.
The extra 4% may also be the citizens of those other 7 states that b o has visited.
I am confident the 53% know to whom Romney was referring when he cited the 47% who will vote for b o no matter what.
b o’s really big problem is getting these under motivated and under achieving 47% to take the time to fill out an absentee ballot and mail it in.
If they time it right they won’t even have to make an extra trip to the mail box. They can just wait for the day their welfare check arrives.
But even if the 47% show up in the same record numbers they did in 2008, they still won’t be enough to ensure b o’s re-election.
b o has to persuade the moderates, independent and the wackos to give him another chance.
These are the people, like EX-RINO who have not yet decided if they are even going to vote and if they do they are still not sure for whom they will vote.
Ex-RINO says September 6, 2012 at 8:41pm “I’ve actually started to seriously think about not voting this election.”
Ex-RINO says September 9, 2012 at 8:27pm “I’ve far from decided what I’m going to do this election… I can’t vote for Romney. But beyond that, I’m still deciding.”
“The extra 4% may also be the citizens of those other 7 states that b o has visited. ”
Good one. :)
RE the question of racism. It seems the biggest racists are the enablers of the decline of the black family and culture.
Who might the enablers be? Well, for one the Democrat party who has a history of racism going back to the civil war and who today proclaims black liberation can be had only through access to birth control and abortion and redistributionism (i.e. more dependency on the government).
Second, another main enabler of the decline of black culture is none other than Planned Parenthood who delberately constructs their abortion facilities within close range of large populations of blacks.
Third, the real racists are those here and elsewhere who do not see, hear, nor speak evil and pretend all is hunky dory in the black culture except for what those evil pro-lifers and Republicans who want to limit choices and force people to work, the later most recently seen in the vote to restore the work requirement when determining eligibility for welfare.
Hmmm… we prolifers point out that abortion is destroying the black family and culture and, presto, we are the racists. The enablers of black family and cultural decline, who are the real racists (again, some of our trolls and fellow bloggers here) are absolved of racial motives. An upside down world indeed.
Ex-GOP,
I don’t get into the weeds with you in the number-crunching field, as I have no aptitude for it. But I am surprised that ts is female! I guess you’d know. You’ve had a running argument with truthseeker for lo, these many years! I guess I’m not as perceptive as I thought.
Hans – for the record – I have no idea – I generally boycott TS these days. I assume truthseeker is a female, but am not positive.
Ken
I think your 9:51 post is inspiring and if you stop and think about what you wrote you could probably learn something. Just like tree huggers ridiculed what was a very sincere effort by you and your friends because they could not see past their own definition of environmentalism you to sometimes categorize people. I didn’t live in a trailer when I was growing up but was economically disadvantaged and compared to some still am. I think a better way when you don’t understand why people act a certain way is to be very specific and say this is what makes me nervous or this is what I don’t like about the way this group functions. Then if someone is dysfunctional your chances of being heard or increased because you aren’t attacking who you perceive them to be. When your specific about what you don’t like then when change is needed viable solutions can be discussed. I learn a lot riding the bus too.
Is it possible for pro-lifers to attempt to educate about the genocide of abortion among minority races without being accused of racism?
Quoting from Tanya Green’s “explanation” of why African Americans supported Margaret Sanger’s promotion of access to contraception:
“By 1949, Sanger had hoodwinked black America’s best and brightest into believing birth control’s “life-saving benefits.” In a monumental feat, she bewitched virtually an entire network of black social, professional and academic organizations into endorsing Planned Parenthood’s eugenic program.”
So your question is, can you “educate” people about your belief that one white woman is smarter than an entire generation of “black America’s best and brightest” put together without seeming racist? No, you probably can’t.
The talk of “genocide” is silly hyperbole. The white birth rate in the US is lower than for blacks and hispanics.
Denise Noe is correct – more unwanted pregnancies mean more abortions. It is the individual choice of the pregnant woman, be she a member of a minority or not.
Except when it’s not. Who decides when a child is “unwanted”?
http://afterabortion.org/2004/new-elliot-institute-report-exposed-americas-forced-abortion-crisis/
Since according to surveys, somewhere around 62% of abortions are coerced in some manner, most times, it’s not the woman’s choice, is it?
Not that that should matter. No child’s death should be anyone’s legal choice.
I think we need to engage in dialouge with the African American Christian community. This would be seperate from signs like these. Good old fashioned human conversation. The Radiance Foundation is a good resource. I think this Native Amercan sign only affirmed pro choicers thoughts that we pro lifers are all nuts.
“I’m not sure where the 47% that Romney is talking about came from. Is it from a poll or what? And I think its quite a spurious accusation to say that 47% of Americans are looking for a free ride.”
Hey Jack – Like ExGOP said, it’s people who don’t owe income tax. Here is a broad overview of who makes up that 47%: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic
Personally, I think it’s pretty reasonable – and not at all a victim mentality – for a family of four making under $26,000/year to not pay income tax (on top of the other taxes they do pay). I also support the earned income tax credit and other such measures that allow that family of four to live above the poverty line and still not pay income tax. The elderly also are a decent part of that 47%. I don’t think that most of those people feel “entitled” to food, housing, etc, as claimed.
At the bottom is a graph showing the income level of people who pay no income tax. And another pie chart illustrating that among households who pay neither income nor payroll tax, almost all are elderly or are earning an income under $20,000/year, which seems fair to me.
Here is a somewhat deeper look at the 47% figure: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57515033-503544/fact-checking-romneys-47-percent-comment/
I don’t think that’s what he meant at all, and I don’t think that claiming that he thinks just because someone is not currently paying income tax or temporarily using assistance EQUALS “entitlement mentality” is fair. He was speaking about the “Obama Money From His Stash” people who voted for him with the expressed belief that he would “pay [their] mortgage” or “pay [their] gas bill” or “pay for [their] college”. If you think those people don’t exist and Romney was just being hateful towards the underprivileged, you should really educate yourself.
Hey xalisae, I don’t know if that was addressed to me or not. I certainly do think that some people have an entitlement mentality – I live in a place where I’m faced with it every day. No education needed on that front. I also know that those are a pretty small percentage of the population, and even the no-income-tax population. I did not say that Romney thinks everybody feels entitled to housing and food – he did, whether it’s what he intended to mean or not.
“All right — there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them. Who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.”
“All right — there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them.”
Yes. And while I might be more optimistic, and I hope that the percentage would be far less than 47%, I think people on this board like Ex-RINO are a perfect example of such a mindset. People who are going to vote for Obama NO MATTER WHAT, because they want their freebies.
Right, but you do see that Romney is essentially saying that the 47% of the country which does not pay income tax feels “entitled” to food and housing, and believes that they are victims?
xalisae, what “freebies” do ex-GOP and I get from Obama? If he does his job right, I’ll be paying more taxes. I’m not voting for him “no matter what,” I’m voting for him because he’s the best candidate running. (your view, might be different of course. That’s why we have elections).
Romney is essentially saying
No, I don’t. Because that’s not what he actually said.
xalisae, what “freebies” do ex-GOP and I get from Obama?
Well, I’m not certain about you, but if you bothered to read anything Ex-RINO has said about his pal WaldObama, you’d know that the reason he so fervently backs that horse is because he is convinced that Obama will give him and some people he knows “free” healthcare.
Hal, you don’t need to vote for someone to raise everyone’s taxes if you want to pay more yourself. If you want to pay more, just write the check, silly.
lol, ok X.
xalisae, I am hopeful that ACA will eventually start bringing down the cost of healthcare. “Medicare for all” would do it better.
As for me paying more taxes, that’s not really the point. Everyone in my bracket and above needs to go back to Clinton era rates if we’re going to make a difference.
And about Romney’s comments, here they are again. Alexandra was spot on.
“Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right? There are 47% who are with him. Who are dependent upon government, who believe that– that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it. But that’s– it’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter wha
xalisae, I am hopeful that ACA will eventually start bringing down the cost of healthcare.
Then you’re delusional. Hopey-changey!
The only thing I disagree with Romney about is the percentage. People who don’t treat government assistance as a way of life were never mentioned. I don’t see what the problem is.
xalisae, where do you think he got the number 47%? You do know that he says, in the quote, “47% of Americans pay no income tax,” right? And says that 47% of Americans believe they are victims who are entitled to food/housing/etc?
Here is some more information about who those 47% are. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/the-47-who-they-are-where-they-live-how-they-vote-and-why-they-matter/262506/
I’m asking genuinely, by the way! Not, like sarcastically or anything. :)
I think the statement that 47% of people pay no income tax and 47% of Americans believe they are victims who are entitled to food/housing/etc are two different statements, and that one percentage is accurate simply because it’s a recorded fact, and the latter percentage is overly high and inaccurate. I’m well-aware of who doesn’t pay income tax. I’m one of them, and have been for awhile. Both back when I was an Army wife, and now that I’ve been unemployed with two children for some time.
I, however, am not “with him [Obama]”, and have no desire to stay where I am, so I know Romney wasn’t talking about me, and will vote for him enthusiastically in the hope that under his leadership, I will be in a position to be making enough to pay income taxes. And I certainly know that will never happen under Obama.
Here are some examples of the people “with him” to whom Romney was actually referring:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ&feature=player_embedded#!
And this is why Obama will never be the guy to get our economy healthy enough again for more people like me to pay income taxes. He doesn’t WANT the economy to get healthier. He wants to grow a voting block of working poor, who all want to vote for him, just like Romney said:
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/24/full-audio-of-1998-redistribution-speech-obama-saw-welfare-recipients-as-majority-coalition/
W.O.W. I hope the people on that radio broadcast don’t actually get out to the polls come November.
I don’t see how Romney’s unfortunate mixing of two approximately-47% groups (one which doesn’t pay federal taxes, and one which is a solid base with their hand out to Obama) is as bad as Obama saying his opponents were ultra-religious, gun-cradling xenophobes.
RUN-ON SENTENCE ALERT!
So you’re telling me if I said, “50% of women in this country have used the pill. 50% of women in this country are immoral whores,” you would actually believe that I was talking about two separate demographics? Why talk about the first if your problem is with the second?
I suppose that if someone introduces a talking point by identifying the 47% who don’t pay income tax, and them completely switches to a vague and undefined – but also – 47% of people who feel entitled to other people’s money – then that guy probably deserves to be misunderstood, because that’s some seriously dubious equivocating right there. 47% is a really odd number to pull out of the air, especially when it’s identical to the number you were just talking about and no longer want to discuss.
Xalisae, you are far more typical of non-income-taxpayers than anyone in the video you linked. You know that. Romney was just wrong. He said something flippant on what he thought was an easy rant and got caught. Not the end of the world.
Alexandra, I think the reason this video of Romney may have surfaced when it did is because Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead, and President Obama wanted to be on Letterman and The View instead of in front of a teleprompter or sitting across from Mr. Netanyahu answering questions about his failed foreign policies. Don’t you think the Democrats needed a distraction and it appears MJ obliged. The actual event at which Romeny spoke occurred back in May. Can you believe the media wants to talk about some flippant comment by Romney versus Obama’s handling of the terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, 2012 – eleven years after 911!
I can believe it, Tyler. I have a lot of opinions on Obama too, and when no one else has said them first, I share them. Obama’s failures don’t mean that Romney is always right and it’s absurd to pretend that just because he’s not Obama, he never says a single stupid thing.
I just don’t like it when the glitz of a silly narrative overshadows the substantive issues of a more serious narrative.
The American public should not tolerate it when the media does this. It is up to good people of both political parties to ensure that fair and important reporting is being done by the media. The American public needs to direct “the narrative’, and not political pundits.
Well, I do think that considering “47% of the country doesn’t pay income tax. 47% of the country consider themselves victims who are entitled to housing and food” to be, essentially, a stab at class warfare, and I think that is a substantive issue, not a silly narrative. It would be a silly narrative if Romney hadn’t said that, but he did, so it’s a substantive issue instead. But that’s just my opinion. I think it is as substantive as “you didn’t build that” and other handy election soundbytes. I think these things should be taken in context and evaluated on that and then dismissed or not, depending on how relevant they are. But not dismissed before they are taken in context and evaluated. Just my personal preference.
Alexandra I fully agree that Mr. Romeny’s comment was incorrect, offensive, and responsible (in the sense some people (not 47%) do feel like victims and some (again not 47%) even exploit the system). However, I don’t think that is what he meant to say. Romney has since clarified what he meant to say and said that is for the 100% – all Americans – getting wealthier by having an American economy that grows.
I also agree with your statement that it is important that the comments of political leaders be contextualized. I think you have done that. However, for this reason, IMO any further discussion on this gaffe is pointless.
Moreover, the silly narrative I am referring to is the one being done by the Media by not contextualizing this gaffe among other news stories and; therefore, I was not saying that the coverage of Romney’s silly of its own accord but only in relation to the importance of other news stories. It is the media’s narrative that elevates Romney’s gaffe over Mr. Obama’a attempt to reduce Israel and Israel’s President to a political nuissance that I find silly.
The media should be reporting that President Obama is attempting to change the way foreign relations are done by the US and that this Obama foreign policy strategy is jeopardizing the safety and existence of millions of Jewish people. This is a huge news story. President Obama’s Middle East foreign policy is a huge gamble I don’t think any President should take and something the medie should be spending more time covering.
“However, for this reason, IMO any further discussion on this gaffe is pointless.”
For you, maybe. If someone seems to legitimately not be aware of the full context then I feel ok pointing it out to them.
xalisae -
That’s untrue – what you posted.
The person is wanting to give away free health care is Romney – he said as much the other day. And you want free health care. You want free loaders to be able to bypass routine care, preventative care, and early care (at the early stages of a sickness) so that they can come to an emergency room where they get paid for by those who have insurance.
YOU are the person who wants free, irresponsible care. I can’t say it any less bluntly than that.
This is why the individual mandate was a CONSERVATIVE idea. 15 years ago, it was the GOP fighting for this. Now, it is something bad. Weird world we live in. The Dems are fighting for people to pay their fair share, and the Republicans saying that people can be as irresponsible as they want, and we’ll pay for them anyway (by jacking up the costs of insurance people).
I repeat though xalisae – it is YOU that want’s the free care. Wait until you are terribly off, and then go to the ER.
If you’d rather repeal EMTALA and deny care and let those people die, please state it. Otherwise, you are the free loader in this conversation.
Ex-GOP if America can’t service its debt and eventually goes bankrupt, the issue about which funding mechanism America should use to fund health care will be moot.
Alexandra, I should clarify: I think Mr. Romney’s 47% comment, although not accurately offensive, they were appropriately offensive. Like parent encouraging their child to take on responsibility. I also agree with Donald Trump, there is no need for Mr. Romney to apologize.
What do you think?
Tyler, I disagree with your interpretation but I believe Romney should only apologize if he didn’t mean what he said. Otherwise I don’t think there’s any need for him to apologize.
You want free loaders to be able to bypass routine care, preventative care, and early care (at the early stages of a sickness) so that they can come to an emergency room where they get paid for by those who have insurance.
No, I don’t. I want them to be billed for services provided, then be responsible and pay their bill however slowly if they must. Like I do when I go to the ER without insurance. I also want immigration reform so we can save 4 billion dollars not paying for illegal immigrants to have their ER visits. http://cnsnews.com/news/article/while-there-are-about-12-million-illegal-aliens-us-today-cbo-estimates-senate-health
xalisae -
That’s a great fairy tales and unicorns explanation – but statistically, most care that is billed to an uninsured person will NOT get paid. That’s the reality. And you might have the best of intentions, but if you get cancer, or get into a bad wreck and can’t work afterwards, you’re giving a big middle finger to my insurance rates and saying “I was careless, pay my bills”.
So again, it is YOU that want the free care – the GOP, anti health care reform – those are the folks that want the handouts here.
And if you want immigration reform, post how it will work – read EMTALA, passed by Reagan, and let me know how you want it handled. If you want to leave them in the alley to die, please post that. Don’t just say you don’t like the current state – post your solution. Otherwise, quit your whining and quit throwing around these free care accusations when the mirror is in front of your face.