dagblog - Comments for "Flipping female Republican voters? Are you flipping crazy?"

Worse, he ignores completely

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:51:27 +0000

Worse, he ignores completely the new research I linked and quotesd at length that rather debunk the 1970's version, but no, if the facts don't fit, just keep repeating the mumbo jumbo.

Well to be fair, maximizing

artappraiser — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:51:16 +0000

In reply to The vast majority of your

Well to be fair, maximizing grievance on behalf of a tribe is not the same thing as seeking truth, it's political action. And one gold medal in the Victim Olympics is not enough, he's got to have all of them. And it's never going to be over until every single person on Dagblog not only says amen to this program of stretching the truth, but goes forth and preaches it, too.

It was the article you posted

rmrd0000 — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:46:14 +0000

In reply to She also mentioned Ted Cruz,

It was the article you posted and the quote directly addressed why white women feel comfortable voting for racists and bigots.

I’ll refer you to a review of

rmrd0000 — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:44:37 +0000

In reply to The vast majority of your

I’ll refer you to a review of “When Affirmative Action was White” detailing the discriminatory government programs of the 1930s and 1940s. The wealth gap between races increased.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/books/review/when-affirmative-action-...

She also mentioned Ted Cruz,

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:44:37 +0000

In reply to I pointed out that white

She also mentioned Ted Cruz, so why didnt you launch into trivia about Cuba? This whipping out the standard litany of racial issues, related or not, going back centuries while we discuss current events, to jam up tje thread just gets old. Where's Waldo? He's looking for the racial angle. Pony's only got 1 trick.

The vast majority of your

ocean-kat — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:32:06 +0000

In reply to The lead in to the ssa.org

The vast majority of your post is simply a restatement of the a priori assumption that a policy that has a racial impact was designed with racist intent. I don't accept that premise nor do I think you have proven it.

I also provided a link to a

rmrd0000 — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:15:08 +0000

In reply to The lead in to the ssa.org

I also provided a link to a 2016 article from Washington University

The lead in to the ssa.org

rmrd0000 — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:10:58 +0000

In reply to The point arta and PP are

The lead in to the ssa.org article list some of the literature regarding racial bias in the early stages of Social Security

In recent years, some scholars have argued that the U.S. Social Security program—like some other social institutions—is biased against women and African Americans. One major contention along these lines involves the original coverage exclusions of the Social Security Act of 1935.

The 1935 act limited its provisions to workers in commerce and industry (this is what is known as the program's "coverage"). This meant that the new social insurance program applied to about half the jobs in the economy. Among those left out were farm and domestic workers. Contemporary scholars have looked at this provision of the 1935 act, realized that a disproportionate number of African Americans were in these two occupational groups, and concluded that the disproportionate impact is evidence of a racial bias as the motive for this coverage exclusion.

An important key to the argument is the additional assumption that Southern Democrats in Congress were the agents who engineered this restrictive coverage policy. Thus, the full argument is that Southern Democrats in Congress—motivated by racial animus—moved to block African Americans from participation in the new Social Security program and that this was the reason for the provision excluding farm and domestic labor (Gordon 1994; Brown 1999; Lieberman 1995; Williams 2003; Poole 2006).

The Race Explanation

The description of Social Security's restrictive coverage policy has become so epigrammatic that it has passed over from historical narrative to background historical fact; it has been assumed and repeated as a basic datum about the program's origin.

For example, one recent labor-history text summed up the issue of Social Security and race this way:

The Social Security Act was also racially coded—in part because of the power of Southern Democrats in the New Deal coalition. Southern politicians, reported one architect of the new law, were determined to block any 'entering wedge' for federal interference with the handling of the Negro question. Southern employers worried that federal benefits would discourage black workers from taking low-paying jobs in their fields, factories, and kitchens. Thus neither agricultural laborers nor domestic servants—a pool of workers that included at least 60 percent of the nation's black population—were covered by old-age insurance. (Lichtenstein and others 2000, 429)

One of the strongest early statements of the thesis was given by Robert C. Lieberman (1995, 514–515), who asserted, "The Old Age Insurance provisions of the Social Security Act were founded on racial exclusion. In order to make a national program of old-agebenefits palatable to powerful Southern congressional barons, the Roosevelt administration acceded to a Southern amendment excluding agricultural and domestic employees from OAI coverage."

Linda Gordon (1994, 514–515) in her influential study of the welfare state, merged a discussion of the public assistance titles of the 1935 Social Security Act with the contributory social insurance title and offered a misleading critique of both: "Social Security excluded the most needy groups from all its programs, even the inferior ones. These exclusions were deliberate and mainly racially motivated, as Congress was then controlled by wealthy southern Democrats who were determined to block the possibility of a welfare system allowing blacks freedom to reject extremely low-wage and exploitive jobs as agricultural laborers and domestic servants."

Alston and Ferrie (1999, chapter 3), in their book Southern Paternalism and the American Welfare State, offered a variation on this account. They argued that class—in the form of racially based landlord/tenant paternalism—played a stronger role than simple race prejudice or other factors, such as federalism, in shaping the programs under the Social Security Act in general and relative to the coverage exclusions in particular.

Probably the best detailed look at the exclusion issue in the academic literature is provided by Lieberman (1998)—Shifting the Color Line. Lieberman did not suggest that any members of Congress were the direct agents of the coverage exclusions, although he did imply that the coverage exclusions were some-how engineered by Southern members of Congress. Here, for example, is one way he described the exclusions: "the CES's [Committee on Economic Security] decision that all workers should be covered came under immediate and persistent question at the hearings … In the end, an important step behind congressional acceptance of a national program of old-age insurance was the racial manipulation of the program's target population so that a national program was sure to be a segregated one" (39). At another point he summarized the history this way: "In order to pass national old-age and unemployment insurance plans, the Roosevelt administration had to compromise inclusiveness and accept the exclusion of agricultural and domestic employees from the program, with notably imbalanced racial consequences" (25).

The point arta and PP are

ocean-kat — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:00:39 +0000

In reply to This is about fucking skin

The point arta and PP are raising is not whether a policy affected more blacks than whites but whether it was designed to affect more blacks than whites. That it affected more blacks than whites is not in contention. But it was not designed for that purpose. You produced nothing to support the contention that it was designed to discriminate against blacks.

This is similar to your argument that hair dress codes are racist. They seem to affect blacks more than whites but they were not designed with that purpose in mind. Dress codes have a bias towards neatness and order. They affect anyone with thick and curly hair that tends to be unruly. My sister had constant problems with the dress code and hated her thick and curly hair. I had some problems too but to a lesser degree as my hair is thin and curly and I'm a man. The problems some white women and girls have with their curly hair is a common meme in movies, the most recent in the Princess Diaries. Most dress codes aren't designed with racist intent even though in the end they tend to affect blacks more than whites.

Voter ID regulations are not like SS or dress codes in that they are specifically designed with racist intent from the very beginning.

I pointed out that white

rmrd0000 — Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:44:39 +0000

In reply to BTW, you forgot the 2nd Wave

I pointed out that white women benefited from white supremacy. A comment about a grandmother appeared. I give a response regarding Social Security. There was another comment about water fountains.You and AA responded.

The article you posted quotes Rebecca Traister and references Brittney Cooper discussing how white women benefit from white supremacy.