I explained, you refused to listen. I'll bet that's a recurring theme in your life. I didn't call you racist, and past racism is a well defined and accepted. I assumed you were unaware, not a racist yourself, but I think anyone following this thread will come to another conclusion.
Do your realize that the overhead (liberally 3%), and the fraud (liberally 10%), are still less then the 20% overhead allowed for regular insurance companies under the ACA?
Once you start donating money in a significant way, you start learning that not all causes are alike...and you learn to make good choices so that your donations will actually matter.
Wouldn't it be great if there was some sort of clearing house that handled your "donations" and made sure they were applied correctly, to people who really need them for medical expenses. Even better if the overhead was lower then any other comparable system. We could call it Medicare, or something like that.
The people who hate private charity and private donations (and want to replace them with government programs) are progressives, socialists, and Democrats.
Sure, that must be why there were record breaking donations (from progressives) after Trump's election.
You inserted RACISM. I only inserted an explanation as to why you might see newer vehicles in a poor neighborhood. You made an assumption and you continue to make assumptions. You also tried to spin my explanation to apply to "rednecks", which it does not. There could be some argument that urban whites have bleed over from urban non-white culture, but that is not what you tossed out.
Your entire line of commentary after that just reinforces your internal bias, and exposed it to us.
I'm the original poster. My point was not about persecution, it was about explanation. Here is a nice article about the "substitution effect" in entertainment spending. This effect also explains why, when blacks were prevented from purchasing desirable homes as their income increased, blacks instead spent that money on fancier clothes, cars, etc... Lots of poor whites look at this slice of their spending and assume every other part is the same as theirs, it's not. That is my point. There are many subtle differences with historical roots. This does not bear out in poor whites or "Rednecks" they move and blend. After a generation, stigma is gone and they have generally adopted the local culture.
No, they self identify due to marketing and yes there is a blossoming "Redneck Culture". We're arguing about a historical "Redneck Culture". It does not exist. You can't claim that Rednecks were any more persecuted then any other group of poor people.
Yes, Redneck has been around as an insult or a denigration. I don't debate that. It has not and is not a culture, as you implied above. There is no Redneck culture. There is black culture, asian culture. hispanic culture. Poor whites and poor non-whites are discriminated against. Poor non-whites have additional discrimination, even if they are less poor. None of your arguments bring any of this into dispute. You probably didn't read that article, because you don't understand it.
I've been toying with setting up an x2go server to handle all internet browsing from Windows computers via a published firefox (or other browser) session. The Windows PC's would be blocked from the internet and any files would need to be downloaded on linux and scanned before they could be pulled into the windows machine.
Hilariously, your article supports my view entirely. It talks about the current redneck chic, and it was published in the 1970's. It's written by someone who has been identified as a redneck, and is ashamed of that sobriquet. He doesn't claim any sort of Redneck culture and disdains those who do because they are claiming it falsely.
From the article: Attempts to deify the Redneck, to represent his life style as close to that of the noble savage are, at best, unreal and naive. For all their native wit—and sometimes they have keen senses of the absurd as applied to their daily lives—Rednecks generally are a sorry sad lot. They flounder in perilous financial waters and are mired in the socio-political shallows. Their lives are hard: long on work and short on money; full of vile bossmen, hounding creditors, quarrels, disappointments, confrontations, ignorance, a treadmill hopelessness. It may sound good on a country-western record when Tom T. Hall and Waylon Jennings lift their voices, baby, but it neither sounds nor feels good when life is real and the alarm clock’s jarring jangle soon must be followed by the timeclock’s tuneless bells. No, we need not perpetuate the Redneck myth. Indeed, our mudball ideally might show a net gain if it were possible not to perpetuate Rednecks themselves.
BONUS He describes you as a "good old boy" The bona fide Good Ole Boy may or may not have been to college. But bet your ass he’s a climber, an achiever, a con man looking for the edge. He’ll lay a lot of semi-smarmy charm on you, and middling-to-high-grade bullshit. He acts dumber than he is when he knows something, and smarter than he is when he doesn’t.
There is nothing wrong with automation. It provides livable wages to people designing and building the robots. There is nothing inherently noble in doing a crappy repetitive job, but if your going to hire someone to do one, you have to pay them.
I've probably read more history in the last year then you have in the last decade, and I'm a bit old for a millennial. Redneck chic is a recent phenomenon, although yes, the insult dates back a hundred years or so. However, that insult is not what we're talking about. Great strawman, but you neglect to refute my statement that there is no historical Redneck culture. Poor whites that got rich were absorbed into the upper class within a generation, not so for non-whites.
You know, a McDonalds won't be around long without a burger flipper. There is plenty of room for that wage to grow before it becomes financially better to not run the McDonalds.
No, I'm not saying victors get the spoils. I'm saying life belongs to the living, and we should try to solve the problems of today. Especially when the cause is widely acknowledged.
Slashdot Mirror
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/milwaukee-segregation-wealthy-black-families.html
Ask me how I know your white?
FYI, I'm not; or not fully, which other whites have told me is the same thing.
You realize I'm talking about paying your taxes and leveraging the power of government to manage healthcare for the needy.
I explained, you refused to listen. I'll bet that's a recurring theme in your life. I didn't call you racist, and past racism is a well defined and accepted. I assumed you were unaware, not a racist yourself, but I think anyone following this thread will come to another conclusion.
Planned Parenthood provides healthcare for women, all sorts. They are the go to location for poor and young women to get healthcare.
Planned Parenthood is not a political organization. The ACLU is a human rights organization. The big political donations are the GOP backing PAC's.
The Fraud + Overhead of Medicaid is less then the overhead of private insurance.
Do your realize that the overhead (liberally 3%), and the fraud (liberally 10%), are still less then the 20% overhead allowed for regular insurance companies under the ACA?
Once you start donating money in a significant way, you start learning that not all causes are alike...and you learn to make good choices so that your donations will actually matter.
Wouldn't it be great if there was some sort of clearing house that handled your "donations" and made sure they were applied correctly, to people who really need them for medical expenses.
Even better if the overhead was lower then any other comparable system.
We could call it Medicare, or something like that.
The people who hate private charity and private donations (and want to replace them with government programs) are progressives, socialists, and Democrats.
Sure, that must be why there were record breaking donations (from progressives) after Trump's election.
You inserted RACISM. I only inserted an explanation as to why you might see newer vehicles in a poor neighborhood. You made an assumption and you continue to make assumptions.
You also tried to spin my explanation to apply to "rednecks", which it does not. There could be some argument that urban whites have bleed over from urban non-white culture, but that is not what you tossed out.
Your entire line of commentary after that just reinforces your internal bias, and exposed it to us.
Now, now, let's not pretend economists really know anything.
I'm the original poster. My point was not about persecution, it was about explanation.
Here is a nice article about the "substitution effect" in entertainment spending. This effect also explains why, when blacks were prevented from purchasing desirable homes as their income increased, blacks instead spent that money on fancier clothes, cars, etc...
Lots of poor whites look at this slice of their spending and assume every other part is the same as theirs, it's not. That is my point. There are many subtle differences with historical roots.
This does not bear out in poor whites or "Rednecks" they move and blend. After a generation, stigma is gone and they have generally adopted the local culture.
No, they self identify due to marketing and yes there is a blossoming "Redneck Culture". We're arguing about a historical "Redneck Culture". It does not exist. You can't claim that Rednecks were any more persecuted then any other group of poor people.
Yes, Redneck has been around as an insult or a denigration. I don't debate that. It has not and is not a culture, as you implied above. There is no Redneck culture. There is black culture, asian culture. hispanic culture.
Poor whites and poor non-whites are discriminated against. Poor non-whites have additional discrimination, even if they are less poor. None of your arguments bring any of this into dispute. You probably didn't read that article, because you don't understand it.
I've been toying with setting up an x2go server to handle all internet browsing from Windows computers via a published firefox (or other browser) session. The Windows PC's would be blocked from the internet and any files would need to be downloaded on linux and scanned before they could be pulled into the windows machine.
Hilariously, your article supports my view entirely. It talks about the current redneck chic, and it was published in the 1970's. It's written by someone who has been identified as a redneck, and is ashamed of that sobriquet. He doesn't claim any sort of Redneck culture and disdains those who do because they are claiming it falsely.
From the article:
Attempts to deify the Redneck, to represent his life style as close to that of the noble savage are, at best, unreal and naive. For all their native wit—and sometimes they have keen senses of the absurd as applied to their daily lives—Rednecks generally are a sorry sad lot. They flounder in perilous financial waters and are mired in the socio-political shallows. Their lives are hard: long on work and short on money; full of vile bossmen, hounding creditors, quarrels, disappointments, confrontations, ignorance, a treadmill hopelessness. It may sound good on a country-western record when Tom T. Hall and Waylon Jennings lift their voices, baby, but it neither sounds nor feels good when life is real and the alarm clock’s jarring jangle soon must be followed by the timeclock’s tuneless bells. No, we need not perpetuate the Redneck myth. Indeed, our mudball ideally might show a net gain if it were possible not to perpetuate Rednecks themselves.
BONUS He describes you as a "good old boy"
The bona fide Good Ole Boy may or may not have been to college. But bet your ass he’s a climber, an achiever, a con man looking for the edge. He’ll lay a lot of semi-smarmy charm on you, and middling-to-high-grade bullshit. He acts dumber than he is when he knows something, and smarter than he is when he doesn’t.
I moved nothing. Redneck is a late 20th century innovation. More about marketing then culture.
Nobody's innocent, maybe less guilty. Were you one of those kids who always pointed out what their brother did wrong when they were being disciplined?
There is nothing wrong with automation. It provides livable wages to people designing and building the robots. There is nothing inherently noble in doing a crappy repetitive job, but if your going to hire someone to do one, you have to pay them.
Courts are protecting the rule of law, which is their job.
Please elaborate. All I saw was an excuse to shit on people who are asking for help and compassion.
I've probably read more history in the last year then you have in the last decade, and I'm a bit old for a millennial. Redneck chic is a recent phenomenon, although yes, the insult dates back a hundred years or so. However, that insult is not what we're talking about. Great strawman, but you neglect to refute my statement that there is no historical Redneck culture. Poor whites that got rich were absorbed into the upper class within a generation, not so for non-whites.
You don't learn what the drone bees want by asking the queen.
You know, a McDonalds won't be around long without a burger flipper. There is plenty of room for that wage to grow before it becomes financially better to not run the McDonalds.
Labor is vastly undervalued in America.
No, I'm not saying victors get the spoils. I'm saying life belongs to the living, and we should try to solve the problems of today. Especially when the cause is widely acknowledged.