Galt's Gulch

The Big Moocher Lie

Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago to Government
63 comments | Share | Flag

Thank you, Progressives. All lives that matter would have been so much better off without you.
SOURCE URL: http://www.urbancure.org/mbarticle.asp?id=644&title=Star-Parker-Is-the-American-Dream-still-available-to-women-and-minorities

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 9 months ago
    The key point she makes is stopping thinking "my problems are somebody else's fault."

    I don't think it's really about her conversion to Christianity or "the narrative of the left".

    At one point he asks the audience how many think it's harder to succeed with dark skin. Most people said no. I say "probably yes" but you cannot obsess over it. I suspect I have some slight disadvantage in the business world for being shorter than ave. When my parents were my age, they faced descrimination for an Italian name and background. It certainly exists today for women in the electronics industry. The problem is obsessing about that stuff. People start off with these little biases, but what you actually do vastly predominates over these little advantages/disadvantages. No matter who you are you probably have had some "unfair" disadvantages and advantages. The moocher lie is obsessing over them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by mccannon01 8 years, 9 months ago
      Stossel failed to ask "How many think it is easier to succeed with dark skin?". Political Correctness and affirmative action has made it very possible to answer that in the affirmative. I've seen it in the workplace, politics, in the media, and academia. Jim Crow is still with us only the face receiving the benefit is a different color, which is a testament to the failure of the civil rights movement. I've worked in large corporate environments and, from about 1975 to present, job postings that say "diverse candidates welcome" always meant white male need not apply. Making white people and white males in particular look foolish, ignorant, weak, the brunt of the joke, or down right stupid and in need of sage advice from anyone other than a white male is the national sport of the advertising and entertainment industries. There are organizations, scholarships, and media outlets reserved for people of color that will not be tolerated for white people because they would be declared racist institutions. Even sports teams can be criticized for being a little too white, but never for being a little too black. Oddly, I mention the Civil Rights Movement, which wouldn't have gone anywhere if it weren't for millions of white people agreeing with its premiss of equal rights and opportunity. Too bad the new Jim Crow has stabbed them all in the back.

      The narrative of the left doesn't want you to see or acknowledge any of what I just wrote.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
        Shortly before I retired from the Alabama Dept. of Corrections in 2003, two people I had known for 20 years competed to be promoted to a supervisor's position.
        One was white and one was black.
        Let m just start by saying that there were blacks better at being a corrections officer than white little me. That out of the way--!
        The white competitor had memorized policies and procedures inside-out and was one of the best corrections officers I've ever worked with.
        The black competitor was a goofy dope. I won't go into all the stupid things I both saw and heard of him doing.
        Guess who affirmative action skin pigment got the promotion?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by mccannon01 8 years, 9 months ago
          Yeah, Dino, I've seen some shenanigans take place along those lines for a few decades and they also included ethnicity and gender as well. I could relate some stories that would make you laugh and cry at the same time and some have nothing to do with promotions or hiring. OK, here's one: I was contracted by a very large corporation to get a chemical making control system back on line. Apparently the building was struck by lightning and some controls circuit boards got fried. The down time loss was estimated to be about $300K per day (Yes, that's 300 thousand dollars a day!). The boards could be replaced and the control system back up in about two hours because there was a local supplier about 10 miles away. All we had to do was get the purchasing department to cut a purchase order and drive over and get the boards. Unfortunately, that supplier was not a "certified minority owned business" and a "certified minority owned business" that had the boards was identified in another city that could deliver the boards in three days. There was a standing order from corporate HQ to the purchasing department that "certified minority owned businesses" will always get first choice, even if it costs more. Therefore, we essentially played euchre for three days while the idiots flushed a million bucks down the drain. Laugh or cry? PS: That company has since filed chapter 11.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 9 months ago
        I maintain that we all have various "unfair" advantages and disadvantage, that focusing on group identity politics is a waste, and that whether you succeed at something depends mostly on your own efforts.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by mccannon01 8 years, 9 months ago
          Yes, we all have advantages or disadvantages, but whether or not they are "fair" or "unfair" may be up for debate. I would agree that focusing on group politics SHOULD be a waste, but those cards are played all the time and have a very real impact. I agree your own efforts have a lot to do with your success.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
        One only has to follow the Democrat Party in particular and the Republican Party which lost it's way since the 1800s to see the validity of mccannons statement. As late as the 1960's Republicans were contributing 80 percent or more of their membership in favor of Civil Rights and ERA attempts while the opposition with a larger number successfully blocked or delayed those changes. Democrats became the Party of the People with Clinton but since then have returned to their historical ways by supporting the Patriot Act which did away with the entire Bill of Rights under certain circumstances which have no constraints. One cannot anymore point the finger at one or the other but both as the new Single Party System. To be kind the Coalition of the Left which has successfully blocked any attempts or methods to remove it other than civil disobedience and ignoring them as they have ignored us.

        They are truly those who believe in government control of the people and with their supporters at all levels define evil.

        Yet even in the national charade there are other choices than supporting evil. In future those who voted approval will become citizens of the new Evil Empire. The rest of will go our own way and some of us will retain loyalty to our Constitutional oath.

        The battle is joined. The questions remaining. Does this mean the Third Revolution has completely succeeded or is their yet time for a counter-revolution? The latter I might add under the Constitution is the only legal side to choose. Ignoring or evading the law Mr. Obama is not the same as amending the law. Regardless of your fundamentally flawed semantics,


        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 9 months ago
        In the end, it will be COMPETENCE that will win out. If you get the position because of anything other than competence, you will eventually fail. If you're competent, you will succeed. Don't worry about someone who gets in over his head; he will drown. The thing that's most galling is to be competent, and someone assuming that you got your position because of your race, ethnicity or sex.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Mamaemma 8 years, 8 months ago
          I wish I could agree with you, Blackswan. This is second hand knowledge, but I have been told repeatedly that companies hire a minority and then hire another person to actually do the job, so the unqualified person keeps the job. They don't drown.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mccannon01 8 years, 8 months ago
          You are sooo correct, blackswan! Promotion and hiring based on anything other than competence can accelerate The Peter Principle and bring ruin to a department, division, or even a whole company. Sometimes it is difficult for a company to get rid of incompetent individuals so they become "free floating apexes" as they are called in The Peter Principle.

          Your last statement is the saddest of all, but it is true. I've seen it. I've been a rather independent type in my programming profession, like the electrician in The Fountainhead, and have worked for many different people. Competence knows no race, ethnicity, or gender, and neither does incompetence. I've always told the competent ones I've worked for, regardless of their race/ethnicity/gender, that I will work for them again anywhere anytime and have had lots of return invitations. As for the incompetent, I don't even leave a business card.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by woodlema 8 years, 9 months ago
      No offense Ciruitguy, but SHE SAID it was her conversion. Why do you feel the need to in essence say she lied about that?

      She HAD a belief system that was born from the teachings and narrative of the left, discovered and adopted a new belief system that changed her attitude.

      Regardless of whether it was becoming Buddhist, or Objectivist, or Christian or a follower of Plato or Cicero, SHE changed her view based on a change in her belief system that SHE attributes to Christianity.

      She does however; reiterate so many Objectivist views in what she is saying, probably without even knowing it.

      She also indicated how none of these issue are really race related except via the "narrative" she used to buy into.

      When you take accountability for YOUR choices, and Decisions, yes you will break out of poverty.

      Thomas Edison said: "Opportunity is missed by many because it is often dressed in overalls and resembles hard work."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by jimslag 8 years, 9 months ago
    The war on poverty has definitely been a failure. We are the same percentage of poor people that we were back in the 60's. The idea that has been bred into the narrative is the 63 different, means tested, anti-poverty programs. In Seattle and other places, there have been requests from people who got their wages raised, to cut their hours so that they would not make so much that they would lose their benefits.A while ago, I saw some graphs that put the benefits that could received at certain income levels. As incomes rise, benefit levels decrease but at a much faster level. So a person who is starting to make more loses more benefits, it is not dollar for dollar. So the government actually punishes those who try to improve themselves.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Temlakos 8 years, 9 months ago
      Is the war on poverty truly a failure?

      If you mean "failed to accomplish its ostensible mission," I would agree.

      But if you mean "failed to accomplish its true mission," I'm not so sure.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 8 years, 9 months ago
      " So the government actually punishes those who try to improve themselves."

      And that is the whole point. It is slavery by degrees. One starts with a thin cord by persuading another to wear it like jewelry. After a couple of generations, it's now a thick chain that is worn with pride to the call of the race hucksters who leverage the pride in the chains to call for everyone to wear them, instead of for the people to simply take responsibility and cast them off!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
      Such is the Obamanation of spreading the wealth around.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 9 months ago
        It didn't start with Obama. In fact, it began before Obama was born. Obama is just the latest rider on that runaway train. When the government began the welfare system, and required that the man of the house NOT be present, and no one smelled a rat, I knew then that we were in for some interesting times. Look at EVERY so-called program for "the poor," and notice the traps in them that the village idiot would avoid, but the so-called "experts" in Washington seem to find every time. It's not an accident. Just make sure that you avoid that system. It will save you a lot of grief.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 9 months ago
      The dollar limit of official poverty gets "re-normed" (upward!) every decade or so. Perish the thought that HHS might ever be able to declare the "war" won and go home.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 8 years, 9 months ago
        This is key. The percentage may remain the same, but 'what you have' at a 'poverty' level is different. Example: In the 1980's only rich people had microwaves; now 'poor' people have them.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Mamaemma 8 years, 8 months ago
      Can someone explain why the government punishes those who work to improve themselves?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 8 months ago
        A government worker could not give a rat's about an actual capitalist producer.
        A government worker only cares about justifying his or her job by factually reporting to a supervisor how they forced a producer comply with some intrusive regulation.
        A written report of latter of the law screwing someone over counts as a feather in the government worker's cap toward the next annual evaluation that can bring a pay raise and even a promotion.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago
    Dependency is the true goal the so-called war on poverty. Dependent people tend to vote for those who foster their dependency. Charity without responsibility is worse than no charity at all. At least with no charity one is forced to do something or die. A charity recipient must be willing to work and create wealth. To be drug free, or at the very least be conscientiously on a rehab program.
    If we can put prisoners to doing useful work, why can't we do the same with charity recipients? If they refuse to learn a trade or do an entry level job, then they don't deserve charity in my view.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
      I'm learning more about the system and how to work it. I figured out all the money owed due to broken and reneged promises for this benefit and that retirement income. Anyone with half a brain should be able to get some of it back. Just call me Robin Hood with a touch of what Rand's Greed book was really all about.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago
        In a recent TV thing which I tuned into on my way somewhere else, one of the women on a panel claimed that if one worked the system completely, one could garner $52k in cash, goods and services.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
          Milking the System or perhaps a better title not so in your face DC might well be a worth while thread. They can have their loopholes and we can have ours. Top points for anything not taxed.

          Which reminds me. I'm switching to Turbo Tax.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by Herb7734 8 years, 9 months ago
            Been using it for years.
            Never any problems.
            Just think, if they actually go to the fair tax it will throw have the accounting firms out of business.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by $ allosaur 8 years, 9 months ago
              You just know those firms have their special interest lobbyists.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
                If they aren't going to dump income tax I don't really care. That's where I'm an all or nothing kinda guy. Fair Tax just means start with one percentage and then start giving sweetheart deals and exemptions and then back to one or two layers. I would doubt if it passed it would include everyone. The left will never give up that much control. The only one is some form of end user consumption tax without Comrade Pelosillynnis Value subtracted add on and embedded this and thats. It's a clear cut case of them versus us. Us being citizens and constitution them being left wing smiley face fascists and Patriot Act. There is no part or parcel of left wing socialist fascism I will accept. Be it moderate right wing of the left cave in a minute on queue republicans or full blow secular progressives. Everything about them must be left - behind. No compromise no quarter.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 8 years, 9 months ago
    Hilarious. Wonder what Carly F. would say?

    There was an article about 15 years ago in EE Times, where a point was made that the number of hispanic electrical engineers employed in southern CA was so much lower than the percentage of these people in the population.

    A beautiful response came back agreeing, but the number of hispanics with engineering degrees was the issue, and if you look at the number of hispanics with degrees vs employment the ratio is far better than white people.

    The problem is not that the US will not accept these people. The problem is that these people do NOT want to be accepted into the society that works hard and pays well. They want the society that works hard and pays well to change to their culture.

    Again I say Asians don't have this issue. They wear normal clothes, speak pretty good/perfect English, study hard and work hard, even when they come from poor families.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by $ Stormi 8 years, 9 months ago
    Whenever federal government creates a "war" on anything, such as drugs or poverty, you can be pretty sure it will be a complete failure. Nothing efficient gets done at that level. Poor in the 60s did not have welfare, they still had self respect, and they could try to pull themselves out of the situation - regardless of race. Women were paid less, because, as one boss told me, "men have to support families." Dad had warned me I would have to work harder at a job to rise about a man, and I went into adulthood knowing that. Then men stopped supporting their families and the government started using other people's taxes to do so. These federal "wars" are indeed an attempt to create a nation of slaves, and it is working. John Stuart Mill said long ago, to help someone beyond what sets them free is immoral.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 years, 9 months ago
      The boss said he was paying you for the work you did and paying the men for their work plus alms for their families. How insulting to the male employees!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by $ Stormi 8 years, 9 months ago
        I had no doubt the whole thing was a money saving method my boss used to cut payroll. It was a small CPA firm. He certainly did not value the men anymore than the women, esp. as I was in his two person ITe section, he just thought he could save money. I did move on to an industrial accounting and tax position for a good deal more money.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by mccannon01 8 years, 9 months ago
        Alms CG? Probably not. Back in the time period Stormi is referring to, perhaps the boss knew his male employees had a strong work ethic and felt a moral obligation to support their families even if it meant leaving a low paying position for a better one. Therefore, the boss had to pay them more to keep them. Notice Stormi left her position under that boss for better pay, just as a family man would have to do if he wasn't getting paid enough. Maybe her boss learned something when she left.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 9 months ago
          How the employee spends his money is no one else's business. It's annoying for someone to be spending your money, even if only in their heads. It's none of their business. The only consideration is whether or not the work is worth a certain amount of money. Period.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccannon01 8 years, 8 months ago
            Agreed, blackswan, pay should always be based on what the job is worth and no consideration to what the employees personal life is. I'm sure Stormi's former boss wasn't paying the family men more than the job was worth, but was paying them more than Stormi to keep them based on the perception they needed more due to their situation. He gambled he could pay Stormi less because in his mind she didn't need as much and wouldn't walk. He lost the gamble because he lost Stormi and had to find someone else. In my mind, the guy is a loser/moocher and I wouldn't want to work for him either. Kudos to Stormi for walking away from him and his job.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by vido 8 years, 9 months ago
    They are convincing themselves that they can, somehow, violate the laws of thermodynamics.
    Such a idiocy can already be successful with ignorant people, hence the continuous effort to dumb down education and exclude early on the seeds of creation (war on boys etc).
    Of course, total failure is a given in short order. So let's sit back and enjoy the decline...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
    Have they ever tried linking total welfare benefits with minimum wage? For example the $15 an hour times 40 times 50 with two weeks off is $30,000 a year before taxes. What if total welfare was capped at 2/3rds minimum wage at the current no taxation? Would it be worth working? That would include the Un - Earned income tax welfare check annually issued. At what point would the jump from welfare to $15 per hour (as an example) be worth the effort. I started to do the math but the variables in our fair and progressive income tax system regressed me into a headache. How much more simple to just have one tax at the point of retail sale and be done with it. It would wipe out the fifty percent that pay no taxes for a start and and progress by the amount spent at the upper end. As a benefit no loopholes for retired congressionals.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ jdg 8 years, 9 months ago
      The whole point of the Earned Income Credit is to make working worthwhile for the poor by alleviating the drop-off in income when you earn enough money to lose your eligibility for welfare (which is different for each of the many different welfare programs).

      To really accomplish that goal, the EIC ought to be even larger and extend to higher incomes. In fact, it should start replacing other welfare programs, at least to the extent those people can work (and I believe most can).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 9 months ago
        Really? Social Security was supposed to be or the destitute. Somehow without that explanation I took one look and said UN Earned Income. the very wording was offensive ....this is what your refund would have been had you been working and paying taxes....as I recall.

        I always took it as a way around the maximum welfare limits.

        Question? Has it worked?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by blackswan 8 years, 9 months ago
      Rather than worry about welfare, show how a couple, making minimum wage, can accumulate a decent nest egg over 5 years or so, if they are frugal, live with roommates or relatives, and have a dream. The major costs of living are housing, transportation and food. What would you do to manage those costs, at least until you'd accumulated some assets?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
        Having done something like that. Doing without and sacrificing. Eating out, movies, using the library for entertainment, picking up the odd job here and there or getting two or two and half jobs per week. A big money saver was boat sitting. Lived rent free in a marina and often helped others in exchange for parts or other needed items. Then look for upward movement. I started at McDonalds and ended up working on a fiber optics installation crew. One day the dream came true and I'm living on my own boat. One big help came along in the form of the US Census. That was a learning experience. At the very end sold the whooptee and headed South. Why not live on my retirement pay or other investments? That money went to put the offspring int a 30K a year University. She's now an MD and a shrink. My time had no value unless it was used to earn something be it bread and cheese or the means to purchase so why not? You don't have to be on welfare. Usually it's discipline, and exhibit a work ethic. I asked for the first three jobs. The rest asked me. Biggest lesson? Never buy Jack In The Crack burgers. In the middle the Be prepared lesson and see what pops up. I had a Merchant Mariner document from my younger days which back then didn't expire. Contacted MSC and filled out their application. The first assignment sent me into Gulf War Five years later I had the boat, the equipment a six pack license and six months supply of food. But the key is discipline, willingness to work long hours and sacrifice. You don't really have to have cable and wifi and whatever or eat at Applebee's. I have wifi now. No car, no TV and what do you know no debts. gotta tell you though that ship job and MSC sucked. Blood money. I'd rather eat at Jacks.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Esceptico 8 years, 9 months ago
    I saw her live on Stossel. Like many other people, Star Parker is able to compartmentalize her religious emotions from what she has to do regarding existence as it is. Stossel did a good job of keeping her off the “Christian” conversion to which she gives credit, and kept her pretty much on track of the subject of the interview.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo