Rick Santorum is an idiot, a bigot, and morally inconsistent...

[leftysergeant]

Your only evidence is that it sounded like "black" to you. I doesn't to me, and it doesn't fit in the context of the full quote.

It fits perfectly in the context of an appeal to the fears and resentment harbored by self-centered racists.

He is not a bit hesitatnat to appeal to the mean streak in conservative audiences.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, but Skeptigirl is clearly seeing unconsious [sic] motivations where there are none.

Your evidence? I've seen no such thing.

 

[Pardalis]

That is false. I've even number the 3 separate lines of evidence for your convenience.

And I've adressed all three. I'm not going to repeat myself.

He started to use "black people's lives" in referring to people who receive government aid--low income people, poor people, whatever terminology you prefer.

That's a false assumption.

If you're trying to argue that because most Iowans on welfare are white is proof that Santorum didn't start to say "black people's lives", then you have a hidden premise: Santorum can't possibly make a racist comment that is contrafactual. Do you believe in that hidden premise?

I went and checked and black people are only 3% of the population in Iowa. I don't see why he would single them out for no apparent reason.

 

[Pardalis]

Your evidence? I've seen no such thing.

Do a word search in this thread. The only one who talks about the unconscious is Skeptigirl.

 

[eeyore1954]

I won't quibble with that, much--but that really isn't how he worded it. He said he doesn't want to improve the lives of one group by taking from another group. That doesn't imply that he is open to other welfare programs or other tax-payer financed plans to help them.

The way you worded it, I would expect it to follow with some other proposal for helping low income people. Instead it was part of an argument for simply cutting programs.

His platform is to freeze spending levels not to cut them out
•Freeze spending levels for social programs for 5 years such as Medicaid, Housing, Education, Job Training, and Food Stamps

He believes the best way to help is by providing opportunity for advancement and jobs. To him this will be done in part by lower taxes.

The fact that he feels enough is already being spent on social programs does not mean he feels it is wrong to use taxpayer money to fund them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I went and checked and black people are only 3% of the population in Iowa. I don't see why he would single them out for no apparent reason.

Because he's racist. That's why. The KKK spends plenty of times talking about "them blacks" and they are all white folk addressing other white folk. You're apologetics really aren't working here. Perhaps they might buy your rhetoric at stormfront, but the people here are a bit more intelligent.

 

[bikerdruid]

I went and checked and black people are only 3% of the population in Iowa. I don't see why he would single them out for no apparent reason.

and very few black people vote republican, i would guess.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

In other news, Santorum got booed for gay marriage comments twice. This back and forth is quite funny, because it sounds like a forum debate. His basic argument was the polygamy slippery slope one, but he never really stated his opinion in a positive manner. He just kept asking the audience questions. Didn't seem to be the best tactic.

The second time he came out with this:

"It’s not discrimination not to grant privileges. It’s discrimination to deny rights...Everyone has a right to live their life, that doesn’t mean that they’re entitled to certain privileges that society gives for certain benefits that society obtains from those relationships.

Linky.

Meanwhile, at GayPatriot (the blog for gay conservatives) they are worried that he isn't conservative enough .

 

[RandFan]

I think his thesis is there are better ways to help others than just giving them things.

I'm willing to entertain that. In fact, if this were the thesis of the GOP, and if they did more than take help away, I'd have some modicum of respect for them. And perhaps, just perhaps if they advanced a workable plan for dealing with poverty I'd still be a Republican. However, the idea that govt simply needs to get out of the way of poor people and the rich alike and then we will see the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is, IMO, untenable. It has no basis in reality. It's a religious like dogma rooted in social Darwinism.

 

[Pardalis]

Because he's racist. That's why. The KKK spends plenty of times talking about "them blacks" and they are all white folk addressing other white folk. You're apologetics really aren't working here. Perhaps they might buy your rhetoric at stormfront, but the people here are a bit more intelligent.

Except he wasn't talking about them blacks.

 

[eeyore1954]

I'm willing to entertain that. In fact, if this were the thesis of the GOP, and if they did more than take help away, I'd have some modicum of respect for them. And perhaps, just perhaps if they advanced a workable plan for dealing with poverty I'd still be a Republican. However, the idea that govt simply needs to get out of the way of poor people and the rich alike and then we will see the greatest good for the greatest number of people, is, IMO, untenable. It has no basis in reality. It's a religious like dogma rooted in social Darwinism.

But for the most part I don't see the GOP saying the govt simply needs to get out of the way. I see the GOP more as saying enough is already being spent to provide a safety net lets also provide a way for people to get out of poverty.

 

[RandFan]

He believes the best way to help is by providing opportunity for advancement and jobs. To him this will be done in part by lower taxes.

A.) Bush Lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003. The poor have seen little to no improvement to their standard of living since. B.) By what theory? At what point do people admit that pumping money to the rich does little if anything? Reagan raised taxes before the economy got better. Bush lowered taxes and the economy has been in the toilet. The only thing we know for certain is that the rich got richer.

The Rich Got Richer

The Congressional Budget Office released a study this week that revealed a huge shift in the nation's wealth distribution. The top 1 percent of the country's earners more than doubled their take of the nation's wealth in just 30 years. James Fallows, national correspondent with The Atlantic, joins weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz to discuss that story and others from the past week.

This idea that if the rich only had more money just has no basis in fact.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Except he wasn't talking about them blacks.

Sure he wasn't.......

 

[RandFan]

But for the most part I don't see the GOP saying the govt simply needs to get out of the way. I see the GOP more as saying enough is already being spent to provide a safety net lets also provide a way for people to get out of poverty.

(emphasis mine) I disagree that is the GOP message. If it were I would disagree that the safety net is enough. But let's accept both premises. What is this "way"? I'm dying to know. I was on the GOP mailing list up until 2009 and I'll be damned if I know what it is.

 

[eeyore1954]

A.) Bush Lowered taxes in 2001 and 2003. The poor have seen little to no improvement to their standard of living since. B.) By what theory? At what point do people admit that pumping money to the rich does little if anything? Reagan raised taxes before the economy got better. Bush lowered taxes and the economy has been in the toilet. The only thing we know for certain is that the rich got richer.

I know there was a long thread on this before but taxes were lowered in 2001 and 2003. When President Bush took office we were heading into a recession , followed by 9/11 which was a dramatic hit on the economy. The economy was improving under President Bush until the housing bubble burst. That was not caused by tax policy.

In a previous thread I asked about Pres Reagan. Under President Reagan taxes were lowered dramatically from the time he entered office until the time he left. What was the top rate when he took office and what was the top rate when he left. What taxes did he raise? I guess SS taxes were raised and the TRA of 1986 did away with many "loopholes".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do a word search in this thread. The only one who talks about the unconscious is Skeptigirl.

For the record, I said, "I agree with the conclusions this was an unconscious slip up, not some attempt to consciously stir racial discord to get votes. But the narrative, "the rich already pay too much, the undeserving poor are the reason for government waste" is a conscious campaign narrative."

I'm pretty sure if Santorum said "black people" he wasn't intentionally trying to play on Iowa racism. That only leaves an unconscious slip up or your minority opinion Santorum didn't say what most of us believe we clearly hear he said.

However, your attempt to label my assessment, 'psychoanalysis' remains an inaccurate use of the term. You are conflating an assessment of a person's motives with

psychoanalysis
(Psychoanalysis) a method of studying the mind and treating mental and emotional disorders based on revealing and investigating the role of the unconscious mind

I don't need to use psychoanalysis to determine the motive behind various themes in a campaign spiel. Those are rather obvious much of the time. If you don't see the patterns in campaign speeches, I can suggest a few educational sources for you on the subject.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know there was a long thread on this before but taxes were lowered in 2001 and 2003. When President Bush took office we were heading into a recession , followed by 9/11 which was a dramatic hit on the economy. The economy was improving under President Bush until the housing bubble burst. That was not caused by tax policy.

In a previous thread I asked about Pres Reagan. Under President Reagan taxes were lowered dramatically from the time he entered office until the time he left. What was the top rate when he took office and what was the top rate when he left. What taxes did he raise? I guess SS taxes were raised and the TRA of 1986 did away with many "loopholes".

You might want to check your facts here:

Judging Reagan's legacy: The Gipper meets the Truth-O-Meter

I'm not sure how far OT this discussion direction should go. In my oversimplified view, Reagan lowered taxes on the rich then used massive deficit spending to boost the economy, pretending it was the tax cuts that had an effect.

 

[daenku32]

There's so much whining about Republicans these days, you'd think they hare in the White House.

They ARE in the 13th month of their 24 month race to the White House. Why not whine about them. They are putting themselves out there for picking.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For the record, I said, "I agree with the conclusions this was an unconscious slip up, not some attempt to consciously stir racial discord to get votes.

And that sounds like a generous (to Santorum) assessment of his intention rather than any sort of Freudian analysis!

This is exactly the sort of assessment and evaluation of which all humans with normally functioning brains are capable, and which is the civic duty of U.S. voters.

 

[RandFan]

I know there was a long thread on this before but taxes were lowered in 2001 and 2003. When President Bush took office we were heading into a recession , followed by 9/11 which was a dramatic hit on the economy. The economy was improving under President Bush until the housing bubble burst. That was not caused by tax policy.

I have posted those numbers time and again. The raw GDP was disappointing. Adjusted for inflation, anemic, per capita, pathetic. But lets assume the economy was growing at a moderate pace, what have lower tax rates done for us lately? It's been a decade. When does it start to drive the economy.

In a previous thread I asked about Pres Reagan. Under President Reagan taxes were lowered dramatically from the time he entered office until the time he left. What was the top rate when he took office and what was the top rate when he left. What taxes did he raise? I guess SS taxes were raised and the TRA of 1986 did away with many "loopholes".

Ah the beauty of Reagan, he changed the tax code not the rate resulting in higher taxes. But don't take my word for it. Take David Stockman's, Reagans budget director.

David Stockman: We Need To Raise Taxes. Like Reagan Did