Gingrich's NAACP, Food Stamp Remarks Stir Controversy

Correct. The problem Republicans have with trying to work with Black People
IMO
They just don't seem genuine.

They come across as trying to use Black People as pawns
to move against the Democrats

Actually that is the problem with politicians in general
Democrats are better at feigning empathy

But More often than now
They see the people. . THE PEOPLE of the U.S.
as pawns to manipulate and move against their foes
for the purpose of gaining more power.

Repubs and Demos have their groups
they manipulate . . .and the groups they cannot get a foothold with

Rocket River

 

what they come across as is talking down to blacks

"blacks need to do this and that"

that's not gonna work to try and get votes

 

It's not, though - I agree that the GOP ideas suck and it would be terrible for the economy. But Newt has been talking about this issue for a while. The NCAAP should welcome him with open arms. If he talks down to them, they can boo him in person. But at the end of the day, the best thing for the black community is for both parties to fight for their vote, because that encourages both parties to have to come up with ideas to address black issues. Make Newt live up to his words instead of just calling him racist.

Here's a welfare example that I only learned recently. All the welfare programs, of course, have various income and asset limits - as they should. But did you know that they are hard limits? If you make $x, you get full welfare benefits. If you make $x+1, you get none (at least here in Texas). Talk to any social worker, and they'll tell you how idiotic this is. Poor people rationally decline promotions and advancement opportunities because getting an extra $50 in their paycheck will cost them $500 in welfare subsidies. As a result, we do create a culture of institutionalized dependency. The fix is incredibly simple: make welfare funds a sliding scale. If you get $50 extra in salary, you lose $25 in your welfare. The benefits would be that government actually helps lift people out of poverty and save money at the same time. It's a win-win situation with NO downside at all for both parties. And it's a ridiculously easy change.

So I asked a Dem politician why no one tries to change it. His answer was that it would show on the budget as cutting welfare and no Dem wants to look like that. How absurd is that? This is a policy that would directly benefit the poor - and especially the black community where you have the largest problem with the cycle of dependence and inability to advance - but no one will do it. And they don't need to, because at the end of the day, they've locked up that vote (the GOP doesn't because they really don't care much about poor people issues). The black community has done a huge disservice to themselves by automatically rejecting anything from the other party before it's even offered. They should listen, if nothing else, to simply to make Dems pay more *real* attention to them instead of just as guaranteed votes.

The similar situation on the right is the anti-abortion movement. The GOP has no intention of making abortion illegal. As long as it's legal, they've locked up that vote and all the money that comes with it. So outside of a few nonsensical bills that get overturned by the courts, the GOP does nothing. Dems don't fight for that vote, so the GOP has no incentive to actually do anything. But really, most of the pro-life people want abortion illegal not for its own sake, but because they want to get rid of abortions. Instead of just saying "we're pro-choice!", Dems should come out and fight on a larger turf: they should say "yeah, abortion should be legal, but we still all want to see it decrease". They should push education programs, they should provide more resources for new mothers, etc. They should fight for ways to reduce abortion while not taking away choices in any way. Similar to the Dem example, this does a disservice to the anti-abortion movement because no one has to fight for their votes, so they actually lose out.

It's an absurdity in politics, and both parties do it. Gingrich talked about this stuff years ago when he was in think tank mode and not running for President or trying to be GOP antagonist (this was back when he was working with Hillary on health care, etc). He's talking about it now as a Presidential candidate and it comes out sounding horrible without context. But it's something that absolutely needs to be talked about. It's simply not a racist statement, and I think it does a disservice to everyone to make it into one.

 

yeah, you nailed it.


They certainly don't seem genuine, especially when the majority of welfare recipients are rural and white and inner city blacks. We won't see Gingrich commenting addressing the welfare problem of white rural constituents, who are the majority of welfare rolls, as the problem and that they need to get jobs.

 

Well of course not - he didn't say that about black people either. He said he needed to convince black people that his ideas for government are better than the Dems' in terms of helping them get jobs, and that he would try to convince them they shouldn't be satisfied with the Dems offering them welfare as the solution to black problems. It was an attack on Democrats, not on black people.

It's almost as though no one actually read or listened to what he said.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure if people could trade food stamps for a real job or career, they'd do it in heart beat.

Moreover, Gingrich only showed a very narrow, stereotypical view of recipients who receive supplemental income in the form of food stamp through state and national. For one, most recipients are not Black, African American. Even with statistical data studies that focus on the racial demographics of food assistance households, it shows African American recipients compose about 28% to 36% of all recipients. Yet, that doesn't even make up half or even partial the total population of African Americans. Already, Gingrich did not account for most food assistance user. So, one could suspect that he did intentionally take a divisive angle.

Furthermore, Gingrich's comments are misguided and short-sighted at best, because he automatically assumes that (black) people receiving some form of assistance for monthly allowances are indeed unemployed, which does not accurately describe the demographic of people receiving such assistance. He doesn't signify the population of the "working poor," or "lower waged worker" versus recipients who are in fact unemployed. Even more so, one must ask the question of whether these people are chronically unemployed, or simply experiencing seasonal-to-temporary unemployment. In regards to it's actual effectiveness, SNAP's monthly allotments can range $10 to over $1,000, but that's only based on the number of children in a household, typically. A maximum allotment for one person is $200, which isn't necessarily alot of money, even as this person could be unemployed or working two to three jobs. In fact, one could certainly need other steams of income to put a decent meal on the table.

It's already a layered problem that has many entangling webs in the problem of poverty in America. One has to really look deeper into such a problem than standing on cutesy one liners to hype his voting base, like "trading food stamps for job demands." Even more so in Gingrich's case, how serious is he about that statement. Does he have any solutions to create more jobs in this country, or more opportunities for impoverished community? Does he have any idea to decrease unemployment in places, like Michigan, especially Flint and Detroit? Is there way he can bring jobs to places, like Appalachia or those crackling, aging towns in the deep south? Moreover, does he have any plans how to train these people and their children to function in such jobs or careers. Yet, it is probably foolish of me to expect someone, like Newt Gingrich to realistic solve, much less discuss, such a problem in American society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

http://www.racialicious.com/2011/05...s-stop-trying-to-influence-government-policy/

http://www.dfcs.dhr.georgia.gov/DHR-DFCS/DHR-DFCS_Food_Stamps/English.pdf

http://www.workworld.org/wwwebhelp/allotments_benefits_food_stamps.htm

 

You know, SM, your percentage is correct, but you overlook one vital thing. This quote says it all:

White men: He had the support of 41 percent of white men. Before Obama, no Democrat since Jimmy Carter had earned more than 38 percent of the white male vote

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...emographics-where-barack-obama-made-headlines

In other words, Barack Obama polled better among White male voters than any other Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976. That's right. The President garnered the most White male votes in 35 years. That's a plus, not a minus. As an aside, it's interesting to me that I know numerous Democrats and Independents, who happen to be White males (besides yours truly), that enthusiastically voted for Barack Obama and donated to the campaign. Of course, I'm a Democrat, so it's not too surprising, but at the time, the numbers of independent voters I knew, as well as several Republicans, who voted for the President made an impression on me. I recall saying so at the time. My own sister (a White female!), a Republican for decades, voted for him. None of this is as cut and dried as you might believe. Presidential campaigns are always won with coalitions of voters. You don't work to win a majority of one particular group and expect to win, not if you want to win. You have to get voters from all sorts of places. Obama was brilliant at doing that.

 

I don't think I overlooked it at all. In fact, I pointed out that getting 41% was considered a stunning success. Was stunning not a strong enough word to encompass outperforming the last 7 Democrats. That doesn't change the fact that white males overwhelmingly vote Republican, does it? If the Republican candidate this time around gets 10% of the black vote he would be the first in a long time. The black vote would still be overwhelmingly in favor of the Dems.

 

Is this some sort of sick joke?

 

Of course they would - Newt never said otherwise.

For at least the 3rd time, he didn't address white food stamps people because he doesn't need to win their votes - the GOP already has their votes. The context was specifically about earning the votes of a new group of people, so he talked about how he would go into the black community to earn their votes. Again, did anyone bother to look at the context in which he was talking?

This is the type of legit criticism that people should be focused on.

That was his whole point. His statement wasn't a one-liner - it's something he's talked about for years, as an attack on Democrats not doing right for the black community. If the NAACP would invite him to speak, they could also force him to share his specific ideas in far more detail, and they could evaluate them with applause or boos on the spot. But as is, if they just accuse him of racism and refuse to listen, what incentive does he have to bother? When a group excludes a party, that group loses out.

 

I'm not bothered by what he said, in fact, I mostly agree with it. Except for blaming Obama for the economic downturn, that's pretty dumb.

 

If it's possible to not talk for the rest of his campaign, I'd strongly advise it.

 

I'm with Major 100% here. It's like a lot of you are just reading the one liner and completely ignoring the full context that Major put out there.

He's not calling black people lazy, he's calling democratic policies bad. His whole point is that he believes the solution offered by democrats to poverty is welfare and food stamps and that those are bad policies. They should demand more because those don't work and that if they'd listen to his ideas he thinks his are better.

That's debatable of course, but it isn't an attack on the black community. The point is targeted at the black community because the black community votes overwhelmingly democratic. His whole point boils down to the opposite of what many liberals on this board say about the poor white people; voting against their interests. Liberals on this board believe the poor and working class whites who vote repub are voting against their interests and he's saying the poor black vote is going against their own interests.

 

no, his whole point is that he rallying the base around the typical dog whistle.

i don't disagree with you or major's assessments, i just believe newt is trying get votes from his base.

 

badass post. most people don't understand how food stamps work. first of all, there are very little people as a whole on food stamps in this country. Second of all a lot of these people do work.

third of all and mostly the best solution is better paying jobs.

 

1. Again it's context, scope of problem, and the identity of the messenger. He doesn't offer any real solutions or conclusions of how to remedy the situation. Moreover, I really have to question his empathy value and motives for such a problem, as well. He's discussed it, sporadically, yet he has really been swinging at this one, lately. Even more so, he's still clinging to stereotypes that most poor (black) people are chronically unemployed, dead beat parents, and are a devoid of morality and work ethic. Not saying that it doesn't exist or his points are not valid, but you have to really question his motives and sincerity.

On the behalf of child labor laws, those laws exist to dissuade exploitation and possible reduction in worker wages. Furthermore, it reeks of desperation, in the since grasping for straws with reckless abandon. Especially in quote, in what you said about poor white recipients, "For at least the 3rd time, he didn't address white food stamps people because he doesn't need to win their votes - the GOP already has their votes."

That already somewhat proves, he's only trying to win votes for an election, and is not concerned a gnat bit about any poor American citizens, regardless if they are welfare recipients or not. It's hard to prove that his comments were not at least slightly divisive.

http://www.theroot.com/buzz/poverty-newt-gingrichs-dual-personality
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/monique-ruffin/newt-gingrich_b_1140405.html



Recent Newt Quotes on poor kids:

" . . . children in poor neighborhoods have "no habits of working" nor getting paid for their endeavors "unless it's illegal."

"Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works," the former House speaker said at a campaign event at the Nationwide Insurance offices."

"So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal."

Gingrich suggested that present laws are too rigid. "You have a very poor neighborhood. You have kids who are required under law to go to school," he said. "They have no money. They have no habit of work. What if you paid them part-time in the afternoon to sit at the clerical office and greet people when they came in? What if you paid them to work as the assistant librarian? And I'd pay them as early as is reasonable and practical," he said.


How does Newt know that all to at least most of these children in poor neighborhoods lack a habit of work? In his life, has Newt ever spent a day or two in poor community, even long enough to see what is going in its surroundings? How much time has he spent at schools in poorer neighborhoods?

If he could quantify that (typically with statistics, it's not that hard) or provide a realistic perspective, then there could be some benefit of doubt placed at his feet. I could say that same thing about kids in general in modern times, which reaches across social classes, even as not all troubled kids are necessarily poor with bad, unmotivated parents. Troubled, or even struggling kids seems to be all over the place.

Again, I'll emphasize he's perspective is flawed at best with hints of truisms. Though, he doesn't seem to understand that there are poor teenagers and kids who actually do work (probably more than what he figures), and are sometimes depending upon to help the household, while there are poor teens who work to have their own income, since their parents cannot supplement their needs for the latest consumer cravings. In fact, alot of high school dropouts withdraw from scholastic, because school disinterests them, and maybe they are struggling students, as well, while more times than not -- they typically seek employment or are already employed at a low waged job. His first quote was purely based on a stereotypical, highly opinionated and unfounded perspective.

http://barbara-pytel.suite101.com/dropouts-give-reasons-a8681

http://advance.uconn.edu/1997/970929/09299710.htm

http://visionforchildren.org/dmdocuments/working_youth.pdf

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/4/43280339.pdf

With this proposed position for children in poor communities, it sounds nice and cute. Though at best, it's only a minor remedy for a cancerous problem, since this country already has problem with producing more jobs. Moreover, has anyone told Newt about our youth unemployment rate, or how much harder it is to employ youth, because they do not necessarily have the experience and such to apply for such jobs.

First, why could he not or would he not offer those same or similar positions to their ... supposedly dead-beat parents who might be exploiting the system. Across the nation, there are alot of unemployed people across social classes who would love to have a job as a greeter in an office, or even librarian assistant. Composed of young teenagers and college students, elderly citizens (who seemingly are not able to survive on social security and retirement benefits alone), middle aged adults who are having difficulties finding jobs, or even recently laid-off workers, overall. Gingrich somewhat disregards the notion of "the lack of opportunities." Also, would these people regardless if they are adults or children receive at least minimum to fair wages?

Another thing that glaringly stands out in most of his criticisms, Newt's lack of focus (subtle disregard) on the education of these children from impoverished communities. Most likely, his target demographic is already struggling in school for what ever reason, such as classroom behavior, learning disability, or simply a struggling student. Some have more severe needs than a lack of work ethic, even as work ethic may not even be an issue at all with a great number of this kids, especially the students with learning disabilities, or students who simply cannot keep up with their peers.

For one, I am already question his life experiences around poorer American communities or his sincerity to such a problem, while even more so he does not focus alot of attention on the educational aspect of it.

Some posters in here are trying to defend a candidate, maybe his position as well. Most of all, the individuals (children) who truly need to be helped are not realistically considered in this matter. What he said for the most part is irrelevant, regardless if it is divisive or not. Because, really it's not a real solution to a very serious, complex matter.

 

My bad. I thought you were being sarcastic! -

 

keep it coming pluto. it always amazes me how moderates to liberals agree with conservatives on this issues as if they are as symplistic as gingrich would have you believe.

 

Yep. We've somehow been jimmyed into accepting entire neighborhoods where they only jobs available are minimum-wage no-benefits jobs.

It's sad to think that 30 years ago a person could support themselves working 40 hours a week just about anywhere.

Now it's like we don't even have the expectation that a person who works 40 hours a week should be able to support themselves.