Michigan voters ban affirmative action

[shinerbock]

AKA, i still don't get the whole "if it doesn't affect you, you shouldn't care," attitude. So if white on black racism doesn't affect me, I guess I shouldn't care about that either.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

AKA, i still don't get the whole "if it doesn't affect you, you shouldn't care," attitude. So if white on black racism doesn't affect me, I guess I shouldn't care about that either.

I don't care what you think, period...

Now with that being said, I am not asking a question of emotion and wondering how people feel about it.

What I am asking is "what is/are your experience(s) with the relevant question"?

If you have never been overtly discriminated against, then how would you know what the problem is? Especially if you are not visualizing it everyday or you actually live in the midst of the problem...

Until the United States solve the issues with poverty, then we will never get beyond equal rights and protections as asked by the Feds.

[shinerbock]

Who is supposed to "deal" with poverty?

[Phasad1913]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Who is supposed to "deal" with poverty?

A whole lot of people...INCLUDING the federal government.

[shinerbock]

What exactly is the federal government going to do? Please tell.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

What exactly is the federal government going to do? Please tell.

I gather you're a (I hate labels, but...) Conservative who believes in minimal gov't involvement, especially when it comes to money and general social equalities. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that the government should have Moderate involvement in ensuring that the status quo is challenged and the haves don't become richer as the have nots become poorer. This usually takes the form of social welfare programs including but not limited to AFDC, welfare-to-work, and civil rights initiatives to combat the numerous "isms." I know that's not exhaustive and a bit vague but for a list of actual initiatives and proposed initiatives you can do a government documents search of your own.

In essence, I feel you can't target class inequality without targeting other inequalities. I don't advocate complete Socialism because it would be hard to get the tax payers to agree to this. I also believe that some inequality is functional for society (in terms of roles and statuses) and inevitable when we have socially constructed distinct categories such as social class. I simply believe that this society has gone too far with the status quo and pyramid-formation wealth distribution.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

I don't care what you think, period...

Now with that being said, I am not asking a question of emotion and wondering how people feel about it.

What I am asking is "what is/are your experience(s) with the relevant question"?

If you have never been overtly discriminated against, then how would you know what the problem is? Especially if you are not visualizing it everyday or you actually live in the midst of the problem...

I can always count on you.

For the record, you continue to ask these (usually white) people on GC about their experiences with these issues. Are you waiting for some groundbreaking information that will make you more receptive to their opinions and experiences? I highly doubt that many if any of the whites who choose to post in such threads will have a tangible experience that they want to share with you. Some might not have a tangible experience at all and others might not want to make themselves vulnerable to being told their experience doesn't count for some reason.

But on the flip side of the whole "you wouldn't understand because of XYZ" stance:

Does every racial and ethnic minority experience discrimination directly. Indirectly? Do "we" get knowledge and understanding of such things via osmosis? Do all of "us" know and understand?

A lot of racial and ethnic minorities are not "overtly discriminated against" as far as they know and do not consciously "visualize it everyday or actually live in the midst." The intersection of race, class, and gender makes it such that we are not monolithic groups who can all relate to an assumed group experience. My race and gender top the list of socially relevant things I will have in common with a poor black women. However, we might experience racism and sexism differently. We certainly experience social class/classism differently since we don't have that in common. But instead of one of our experiences being placed above the other or deemed irrelevant, it's important to share and learn.

[shinerbock]

Yeah, you could term me a conservative. My problem is not with the government helping people to get back on their feet, its with people EXPECTING that. I think social programs have a history of discouraging personal responsibility of both those needing such programs, and the rest of us who don't. I just hate the idea that our government, or our well off citizens, "owe" anyone anything. Ideally, what I'd like to see is minimum government social programs, with increased emphasis on religious and charitable organization work. From a Christian standpoint, I think that government involvement in this area is allowing Christians to slack off on their responsibilities. I also think that the government's complete failure in the arena of social programs has turned those who could help away from doing so, because of things like incredibly high tax burdens and little restrictions on aid. It would require some time and a complete societal change to fix the system to how I would like to see it, but lets be honest, the government will never be able to fix the poverty problem. The only way we'll fix it is to put the responsibility on private organizations and individual Americans, and emphasize to those in poverty that while they may be given the tools, they'll have to put in the work.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Yeah, you could term me a conservative. My problem is not with the government helping people to get back on their feet, its with people EXPECTING that. I think social programs have a history of discouraging personal responsibility of both those needing such programs, and the rest of us who don't. I just hate the idea that our government, or our well off citizens, "owe" anyone anything. Ideally, what I'd like to see is minimum government social programs, with increased emphasis on religious and charitable organization work. From a Christian standpoint, I think that government involvement in this area is allowing Christians to slack off on their responsibilities. I also think that the government's complete failure in the arena of social programs has turned those who could help away from doing so, because of things like incredibly high tax burdens and little restrictions on aid. It would require some time and a complete societal change to fix the system to how I would like to see it, but lets be honest, the government will never be able to fix the poverty problem. The only way we'll fix it is to put the responsibility on private organizations and individual Americans, and emphasize to those in poverty that while they may be given the tools, they'll have to put in the work.

Thanks for your candid response. It's not about "fixing" the poverty problem because the world is too dynamic to assume that a few years of social programs will fix any social ill. As long as we have capitalism, globalization, and large sums of money going to establish democracy in other nations, the U.S. government benefits more by having a huge disjuncture between the haves and have nots.

Shouldn't taxpaying citizens expect for the government to provide safetynets? The poor, which includes the people who are between jobs and the working poor, still pay taxes. Didn't the nonpoor who fell on bad times after 9/11 expect the U.S. government to assist them with certain social welfare programs? If paying taxes and being citizens of this great land don't lead to certain expectations, what does?

If you look at the history of social welfare programs especially those dating back to the early 20th century, it was never about dismissing personal responsibility for the poor and nonpoor. The government simply took up the slack for the poor and nonpoor when times of war or economic depression hit. Even today, the average person on welfare is of the working poor or has lost a job and gone back on welfare. No people in their right minds will not do for themselves just because they think the government will do for them once the bureaucratic red tape clears. The stereotypical poor person who'd rather sit around waiting for a paycheck is a small percentage as is the welfare mother with tons of children. Even people who are considered "middle class" and upper middle class live paycheck to paycheck because their class status is based on income and not wealth. They don't realize how close they are to the edge until times like 9/11 hit.

The well-off citizens who comprise the top 5% didn't get there on their own. They got help along the way in the form of government wealthfare programs and tax cuts, as well as stepping on the heads of the less well-off on the way to the top. This isn't a pure meritocracy and if you were to tell the well-off that the government was providing no more incentives or safety nets for them and their corporations, they'd flip and contact some politicians.

[shinerbock]

Sure, I'm for a safety net, if it were feasible. The fact is, its really not now. It is simply a logistical and financial nightmare to help people get back on their feet while ensuring they are doing their part to make the assistance temporary. Also, we're never going to fix poverty, as you seem to agree, but I don't think we'll make any substantial gains when the government is leading the way either. I agree with you that the point is obviously not to discourage responsibility, but regardless, it has. I also agree with you that the large majority of people getting help aren't sitting around waiting for a check, or continuing to have children or whatever, but the fact is that plenty of them are.

As for the upper classes, you're right, some had help along the way. But more importantly, somewhere along the way, those people's father or grandfather busted his ass to provide a future for his family. Is that happening in today's society? Sure. As much? I don't think so.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Sure, I'm for a safety net, if it were feasible. The fact is, its really not now.

It is always feasible for the wealthiest and most powerful industrialized nation in the world.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Is that happening in today's society? Sure. As much? I don't think so.

It is happenening today but the economy and overall society has changed such that "busting your ass" means something different now than it did generations ago. Moreover, I don't know about you but, my grandparents busted their asses in the fields and in blue collar jobs and both of my parents busted their asses through higher-end academia and raising children so that I wouldn't have to "bust my ass" in the exact same way they did. It's called wealth accumulation and intergenerational mobility. I praise the Lord that I am a beneficiary of it. I'm not in the top 5% of society but I don't need to be to have the quality of life that I want for myself and my family.