Obama aint fooling anybody

[RGacky3]

ANyone else notice in the last 2 weeks or so Obama suddenly turned into a progressive? for taxing the rich, suddely saying no entitlement cuts and we need tax hikes for the rich?

First of all, when did ONLY agreeing to medicare cuts if you hike taxes become progressive? In the past that was centrist republican. Obama just being a regular new democrat is now somehow progressive.

Also we all know that he's bullshitting, this is nothing but campain mode and he would'nt do this unless he knew that it would'nt pass and that the republicans would get most of their way (which is actually his way too), so he can go to progressives and say "look I tried," but also tell corporate American "look, you got what you wanted."

Anyone who doesæ'nt believe me can juts look pre 2010 at how much progressive legislation was pushed when Obama had the power to do so.

[CommunityBeliever]

Obamabot configuration file:


campaign-mode = on

[eyeheartlenin]

The expression I heard, years ago, was "Election-year compassion," which almost fits now.

The reporting on the proposal has changed over a brief period of time: One early report said that the White House did not take raising the Medicare eligibility age off the table (so raising the eligibility age is still a possibility), but more recently Reuters said, "Obama's suggestions do not raise the eligibility age for Medicare recipients," so I do not know what to believe now. I am still astonished that a Democrat ever put Medicare and Social Security "on the table" (during the debt ceiling controversy). I used to think we could count on that much "safety net," but that seems uncertain now.

[Bud Struggle]

Obama is trying to get the couple o Progressives out there back into the fold. Not that it really matters. Rommey is becomming a serious threat. His right, but not too right of center approach is on target to get him elected.

We may just have a Republican President, Senate and House next election.

[RGacky3]

Not that it really matters.

It does matter when they don't vote for him


Rommey is becomming a serious threat. His right, but not too right of center approach is on target to get him elected.


Romney will only win with extremely low voter turnout, he's seen as a corporate hack.

Obama will only win if he can get the progressive base back, and the leftist independants (most independants are not between republicans and democrats, most of them are just something else, also most Americans are economically progressive).

The right might win the way they won 2010, with historically low voter turnout due to Obama constantly dismissing his former base, right now its too little too late.

[Drosophila]

As long as Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Dick Santorum, or Ron Paul isn't elected, nothing will change in the US.

[Bud Struggle]

Romney will only win with extremely low voter turnout, he's seen as a corporate hack.

Obama will only win if he can get the progressive base back, and the leftist independants (most independants are not between republicans and democrats, most of them are just something else, also most Americans are economically progressive).

The right might win the way they won 2010, with historically low voter turnout due to Obama constantly dismissing his former base, right now its too little too late.

NOOOOOO!

Republicans are looking for high voter turnout to elect Romney. They will get that with the help of the Latino vote. They will be very proud to have American's highest ranking Latino as VP candidate on the ticket............


Senator Marco Rubio of the Great State of FLorida!

With him the Republicans can't loose. :)


This is all planned out, Brother. ;)

[RGacky3]

There is no way Republicans are really getting the Latino vote (other than perhaps florida), Republicans historically have ALWAYS wanted lower voter turnout, thats why they are making all these laws now in different states to make it harder for poor people to vote.

Of coarse its planned out, but whether it will work is another thing, 2 years ago the republicans were running ads telling Latinos NOT to vote, because they realized how silly it was to ask them to vote republican.

The republicans #1 advantage is that a lot of people will simply not turn up to vote, the republicans are less poplar than the democrats, but their base ALWAYS votes, Democrats on the other hand are more scattered and more independant.

Plus Marco Rubio Said he's not running for VP, not that if he did, it would make the slightest difference.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I'm just waiting for him to drop the facade and initiate the international jihad. :cool:

[Bud Struggle]

There is no way Republicans are really getting the Latino vote (other than perhaps florida), Republicans historically have ALWAYS wanted lower voter turnout, thats why they are making all these laws now in different states to make it harder for poor people to vote.

Of coarse its planned out, but whether it will work is another thing, 2 years ago the republicans were running ads telling Latinos NOT to vote, because they realized how silly it was to ask them to vote republican.

The republicans #1 advantage is that a lot of people will simply not turn up to vote, the republicans are less poplar than the democrats, but their base ALWAYS votes, Democrats on the other hand are more scattered and more independant.

Plus Marco Rubio Said he's not running for VP, not that if he did, it would make the slightest difference.

Completely disagree about Rubio.

He's in Florida--a swing state is there ever was one. And he just may take enough Lationo votes in Florida and elsewhere away fom Obama, who this time around isn't going to get the big ground swell he got last time.

As far as how many voters turn up--well that's their choice.

On the other hand the House is a good measure of the mood of the country as any other--and that is and will be firmly Republican.

I think the Democrats screwed it up and for the most part the country will turn to the Republicans.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Rubio would actually be a good pick imo. With all the talk about abolishing social security having him on would definitely put Fla in play, but only if romney distances from that tea party talk. Rubio won't give the GOP the Latino vote however, only the Cuban vote (which is historically republican anyway). Latinos I fear will probably not vote in growing numbers in this election, Obama has been anything but pro-immigrant, or even really stood up for the rights of American citizens who are Latino in places like az, while the republicans are, well, republicans.

That's all assuming romney gets the nod, which would surprise me to be honest.

[Bud Struggle]

Rubio would actually be a good pick imo. With all the talk about abolishing social security having him on would definitely put Fla in play, but only if romney distances from that tea party talk. Rubio won't give the GOP the Latino vote however, only the Cuban vote (which is historically republican anyway). Latinos I fear will probably not vote in growing numbers in this election, Obama has been anything but pro-immigrant, or even really stood up for the rights of American citizens who are Latino in places like az, while the republicans are, well, republicans.

That's all assuming romney gets the nod, which would surprise me to be honest.

Nah. Latinos for Rubio are like Blacks for Obama. I hang out with Latinos--that's how a lot of them think. Very clannish.

And Florida has the most organized groups of Latinos. Cubans first--but most of these guys play follow the leader.

Latinos will follow Romney if he takes Rubio.

It's good plan. And Florida is a MAJOR player in politics.

Florida ethnic politics is very exciting these days.

[Dumb]

Marco Rubio will help the GOP win the Latino vote just like John Edwards helped Kerry carry the South in 2004.

In other words: people don't give a darn who's on the bottom of the ticket. It's a myth that's been pulverized to miserable, tiny shreds of lard by the cold, hard facts of political science. BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Granted, there are times when the partner at the bottom of the ticket can have a small, small impact - say, less than 1% - but that only matters if a state is already hanging on a razor-thin edge as is. If 55% of Floridians prefer Obama over the GOP nominee (Romney, Perry), Obama can still count on 54% even if Rubio's the VP nominee.

More to the point...if you compare 2008 to 2010, the Democrats actually did not do much worse by race, by income, or ideology. 60% of moderates voted for Obama in 2008, and 55% of moderates voted for House Democrats in 2010; while House Democrats won only 37% of the white vote, Obama didn't fare much better in 2008 with 43% of the white vote in 2008; and, the House Democrat's 2010 share of the under-$50k vote (54%) still holds up pretty decently compared to Obama's 60% share in 2010.

What happened, instead, is that pro-Democratic demographic groups did not show up in 2010, while pro-GOP groups came out in droves. Ethnic minorities were 26% of the 2008 vote, but 23% of the 2010 vote; voters with a high school degree or less were 24% of the 2008 vote, but 20% of the 2010 vote; and, liberals and moderates were 66% of the vote in 2008, but only 58% of the vote in 2010. It's quite possible that the people who voted in 2010 would have elected John McCain as president in 2008.

So that's the problem Obama faces: not convincing people to prefer him over the GOP, but rather convincing people that it's worth it to come out and vote at all. The GOP does NOT want higher voter turnout, because their demographics are already coming out anyway; most of the voters left to get out are pro-Obama.

(And the Latino vote went to House Democrats 60-38% in 2010, despite circumstances that were much more favorable to the GOP than what we'll see in 2012).

[Bud Struggle]

Marco Rubio will help the GOP win the Latino vote just like John Edwards helped Kerry carry the South in 2004.



There is a world of difference between Rubia--and actual Latino and Edwards what was a bi of a nothing. HE was a Southerer?

All that has to happen is Rubio has to put Romney over the edge in Florida. It's not that big of a deal. Besides look at all the first time Blacks that truned out for Obama.

Ethnicity counts a lot in certain populations.

[Dumb]

There is a world of difference between Rubia--and actual Latino and Edwards what was a bi of a nothing. HE was a Southerer?

All that has to happen is Rubio has to put Romney over the edge in Florida. It's not that big of a deal. Besides look at all the first time Blacks that truned out for Obama.

Ethnicity counts a lot in certain populations.

Yeah, John Edwards was serving at the time as Senator from North Carolina.

As for the first time black voters in 2008 - look also at all the first time under-30s, the first time non-college graduates, etc. who voted for Obama in 2008. 2008 was a year for historically high turnout across the board.

For perspective, Kerry-voting blacks were 10% of the 2004 vote, while Obama-voting blacks were 12% of the 2008 vote. Remember the hoopla around the first black president, and remember how energized the Democratic base was in 2008. Is there going to be as much excitement over the first Latino VP (especially for a party most Latinos have routinely opposed, and that wants to ship said Latinos back to Mexico, etc.)? Is the GOP base going to be as energized as the Democrats in 2008 (or as the GOP in 2010)? I think the answer to both is "no," but even if you answer yes to both, then bear in mind that the Rubio Effect is only going to be worth, at most, 1.5% (because there are fewer legally eligible Latino voters).

For comparison, Obama's boost with black voters (2%) is identical to his boost from latino voters.

[RGacky3]

He's in Florida--a swing state is there ever was one. And he just may take enough Lationo votes in Florida and elsewhere away fom Obama, who this time around isn't going to get the big ground swell he got last time.


Your right about Florida, but Latinos in florida won't vote for a latino VP just because, I seriously doubt it, also Latinos from Cuba is much much different from Latinos from Mexican and central America when it comes to overall political demographics.

What your seeing in many states right now is moves to try and stop poor people from voting, its an age old republican strategy, republicans leverage goes up when voting goes down.

Overall more of hte poor are less likely to vote, but when they do they are generally left leading, so low voter turnout generally benefits republicans OVERALL.

Marco Rubio being latino is'nt gonna cut it, he's not known as a latino, nor is he very active in Latino politics or causes, he's a republican with a spanish name, thats it.


So that's the problem Obama faces: not convincing people to prefer him over the GOP, but rather convincing people that it's worth it to come out and vote at all. The GOP does NOT want higher voter turnout, because their demographics are already coming out anyway; most of the voters left to get out are pro-Obama.


Thats the fact.

[Dumb]

Here's a piece on Rubio that makes (and reiterates) some good points: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/94948/marco-rubio-immigration

Bear in mind that it's a liberal site.

[Bud Struggle]

Your right about Florida, but Latinos in florida won't vote for a latino VP just because, I seriously doubt it, also Latinos from Cuba is much much different from Latinos from Mexican and central America when it comes to overall political demographics.

What your seeing in many states right now is moves to try and stop poor people from voting, its an age old republican strategy, republicans leverage goes up when voting goes down.

Overall more of hte poor are less likely to vote, but when they do they are generally left leading, so low voter turnout generally benefits republicans OVERALL.

Marco Rubio being latino is'nt gonna cut it, he's not known as a latino, nor is he very active in Latino politics or causes, he's a republican with a spanish name, thats it.

Rubio is Cuban in a heavy Cuban state. For that matter Cubans--unlike most other Latinos--are fairly Republican. But unlike other Latinos--Cubans are reasonably successful in Florida business.

Anyway, if people don't vote--that's their problem.

[RGacky3]

Anyway, if people don't vote--that's their problem.

Ok ... But either way, low voter turnout = good republican results ...


Rubio is Cuban in a heavy Cuban state. For that matter Cubans--unlike most other Latinos--are fairly Republican. But unlike other Latinos--Cubans are reasonably successful in Florida business.

Any stats on that? That Cubans are more successful in buisiness?

If these Cubans were gonna vote republican, its not gonna be because of Rubio.

[Bud Struggle]

Any stats on that? That Cubans are more successful in buisiness?

If these Cubans were gonna vote republican, its not gonna be because of Rubio.

For the most part Cubans side with the Republicans. They were the force behind Jeb Bush. And the Cubans aren't the Latinos picking the tomatos in the Redlands. They are pretty much exclusively Mexicans.

The Cubans are reasonably successful in Miami as a whole.

Interesting lecture notes on Cuban Americans. Seems they are beter educated than Angelos.

http://www.princeton.edu/~sociolog/syllabi/centeno_lecture_notes_cubans.html

[RGacky3]

For the most part Cubans side with the Republicans. They were the force behind Jeb Bush. And the Cubans aren't the Latinos picking the tomatos in the Redlands. They are pretty much exclusively Mexicans.


Fine ... Does'nt make Marco Rubio especailly relevant to anything.

BTW, still no stats on that, just some boarderline racist and obviously douchy rhetoric.

Also, Cubans emigrating from Cuba were generally from the upper middle and upper classes in Cuba that were anti-communist and wanted to protect their wealth, Mexicans and central Americans are almost entirely from the lower classes, so it would make sense.

[Bud Struggle]

Fine ... Does'nt make Marco Rubio especailly relevant to anything.

BTW, still no stats on that, just some boarderline racist and obviously douchy rhetoric.

Also, Cubans emigrating from Cuba were generally from the upper middle and upper classes in Cuba that were anti-communist and wanted to protect their wealth, Mexicans and central Americans are almost entirely from the lower classes, so it would make sense.

I added the notes. And it's not racist to state facts.

[RGacky3]

55% of US born CA had HH incomes over 30K vs. 44% of Anglos
37% of US born CA had HH incomes over 50K vs. 18.1% of Anglos


Ok, thats something, however,


Very few US born CA under poverty line.


Because most of them came from wealth from Cuba, as it goes on to say.


1961-1965: 500,000

1980: 125,000

1994: 30,000

First two waves fit the traditional image of relatively white from MC and
upper class

Mariel and 1994 waves have tended to be more from working class and also
larger percentage of black or mulatto.


So I know what you were trying to say here, that Cubans are republicans thus they are wealthier, when really its the other way around, the majority of Cuban Americans are wealthier, or come from wealthier backgrounds thus they are republicans.

Typical Bud Struggle.

[Bud Struggle]

Ok, thats something, however,



Because most of them came from wealth from Cuba, as it goes on to say.



So I know what you were trying to say here, that Cubans are republicans thus they are wealthier, when really its the other way around, the majority of Cuban Americans are wealthier, or come from wealthier backgrounds thus they are republicans.

Typical Bud Struggle.

It's not like these people came over with bags of money. These people knew how to make money in Cuba--and they know how to make money in the USA. They could make money on the moon if they were stranded there.

The USA was pretty darn good to most of them--and I think they would agree.

Anyway it kind of proves my point that the reason that people are poor is because of--the people themselves.

[Dumb]

It's not like these people came over with bags of money. These people knew how to make money in Cuba--and they know how to make money in the USA. They could make money on the moon if they were stranded there.

The USA was pretty darn good to most of them--and I think they would agree.

Anyway it kind of proves my point that the reason that people are poor is because of--the people themselves.

They didn't need to come over with boatloads of money, because the money was already here. Remember that Cuba had been an American territory for decades, and connections between the business class in Cuba and the US remained tight until 1959. When Castro came to power, all the business class in Cuba had to do was sail over and/or send their children to live with family and/or business connections, both of which already had money.

Plus, the United States government went out of its way to provide financial assistance to Cuban immigrants in the 1960s as part of Cold War-era "humanitarianism."

[Bud Struggle]

They didn't need to come over with boatloads of money, because the money was already here. Remember that Cuba had been an American territory for decades, and connections between the business class in Cuba and the US remained tight until 1959. When Castro came to power, all the business class in Cuba had to do was sail over and/or send their children to live with family and/or business connections, both of which already had money.

Plus, the United States government went out of its way to provide financial assistance to Cuban immigrants in the 1960s as part of Cold War-era "humanitarianism."

I'm sure some had some money. But by far most didn't. The Cubans built a very nice world for themselves in Miami. Hard work, the American Dream. It worked for them.

You Commies jusr can't believe that people who work hard (and smart) can do well.

[RGacky3]

Bud, did the read the arcticle you posted???


1961-1965: 500,000

1980: 125,000

1994: 30,000

First two waves fit the traditional image of relatively white from MC and
upper class

Mariel and 1994 waves have tended to be more from working class and also
larger percentage of black or mulatto.

ITS WRITTEN IN YOUR ARCTICLE,

of coarse America is good for rich white people.


You Commies jusr can't believe that people who work hard (and smart) can do well.

Thats not what we said, what we are saying is the reason Cubans are generally better off than mexicans or central Americans is because they come from money and its easier to make it with money than without.


Anyway it kind of proves my point that the reason that people are poor is because of--the people themselves.

It actually proves the opposite, its in your arcticle that YOU posted.

[kapitalyst]

Obamabot configuration file:


campaign-mode = on

How did you get that config file?! We thought our SVN server was running at max security! Oh no, now you can see the Obama source too:



static void GiveSpeech()
{
bool giving_speech = true;

while (giving_speech)
{
TaxWealthy();
HateOnSmallJetIndustry();

if (time_is_up || enough_applause)
giving_speech = false;
else
ClearThroat();
}
}


:laugh:

I kind of disagree with the OP though... these have been Obama's ideals since day 1... But now he's just working extra hard to pander to the Union Gangsters, lobbyist, special interest groups and the radical base...

[#FF0000]

I kind of disagree with the OP though... these have been Obama's ideals since day 1... But now he's just working extra hard to pander to the Union Gangsters, lobbyist, special interest groups and the radical base...

:mellow:

[RGacky3]

I kind of disagree with the OP though... these have been Obama's ideals since day 1... But now he's just working extra hard to pander to the Union Gangsters, lobbyist, special interest groups and the radical base...

Really .... How?

[citizen of industry]

Anyway it kind of proves my point that the reason that people are poor is because of--the people themselves.

Now that's an interesting claim. Employment of foreign born men dropped by almost 1/3 from 2007-2010, compared with 21.6% percent of men born here. In the same period, blacks lost more jobs than they had gained in the previous 10 years. Right now, 8% of white men are unemployed, compared to 17.3% of black men. For black youth - 47.2% unemployment.

White households, with median assets of $134,992 fell to $113,149, 16%. Black households had median assets of $12,124, and fell to $5,677, 53%.
Latinos - $18,539 to $6,235 - 66% These are statistics from the US Census Bureau.

So by your logic, foreigners, blacks and latinos are generally poorer because of themselves, that it is their fault. Which would indicate some belief of racial superiority on your part rather than faulting an economic system, which is clearly to blame.

During the same period, 74 people with income starting at $91.2 million increased more than 5 times to $518.8 million. This proves RGacky3's point that it takes money to make money. It also proves that the rich steal from the poor, particularly the poorest minorities.

[kapitalyst]

Now that's an interesting claim. Employment of foreign born men dropped by almost 1/3 from 2007-2010, compared with 21.6% percent of men born here. In the same period, blacks lost more jobs than they had gained in the previous 10 years. Right now, 8% of white men are unemployed, compared to 17.3% of black men. For black youth - 47.2% unemployment.

White households, with median assets of $134,992 fell to $113,149, 16%. Black households had median assets of $12,124, and fell to $5,677, 53%.
Latinos - $18,539 to $6,235 - 66% These are statistics from the US Census Bureau.

So by your logic, foreigners, blacks and latinos are generally poorer because of themselves, that it is their fault. Which would indicate some belief of racial superiority on your part rather than faulting an economic system, which is clearly to blame.

During the same period, 74 people with income starting at $91.2 million increased more than 5 times to $518.8 million. This proves RGacky3's point that it takes money to make money. It also proves that the rich steal from the poor, particularly the poorest minorities.

I dooooooon't think so... And don't go calling/implying the guy a "racist".

First of all, if being black or latino "makes" you poor, because you're a target, then how do we explain the existence of black and latino millionaires? Why didn't it happen to them too?

Maybe this has some better factors we can attribute it to, like a pathetic public school system? Yes, I think so. Maybe we also have a stupid "War on Drugs" going on which harms mostly low-income minorities? Yes. And maybe we have a lot of minority youths who have grown up and never been taught how to work hard and succeed in the world? Yes. And why might that be? Because the state has targeted them for "apology welfare", as some kind of pathetic apology for the wrongs their great-grandfathers suffered from people who are dead and gone. Welfare dependency is like a disease for all people of all races, and it keeps people living in the gutter. Just look at what has become of a once proud people who, after being persecuted by the government, began to receive more welfare than anyone: Native Americans. Welfare might help a few people temporarily, but it ends up wasting entire generations.

The lower and middle class is also having what wealth it has stolen by the crooks at the Federal Reserve. Sadly, most don't even know that it's happening to them and that $100 they have today won't be worth $100 in the near future. This is a story of government failure on many levels. A government with too much power. A government that is invasive, oppressive and outrageously wasteful.

[citizen of industry]

I dooooooon't think so... And don't go calling/implying the guy a "racist".

First of all, if being black or latino "makes" you poor, because you're a target, then how do we explain the existence of black and latino millionaires? Why didn't it happen to them too?

Maybe this has some better factors we can attribute it to, like a pathetic public school system? Yes, I think so. Maybe we also have a stupid "War on Drugs" going on which harms mostly low-income minorities? Yes. And maybe we have a lot of minority youths who have grown up and never been taught how to work hard and succeed in the world? Yes. And why might that be? Because the state has targeted them for "apology welfare", as some kind of pathetic apology for the wrongs their great-grandfathers suffered from people who are dead and gone. Welfare dependency is like a disease for all people of all races, and it keeps people living in the gutter. Just look at what has become of a once proud people who, after being persecuted by the government, began to receive more welfare than anyone: Native Americans. Welfare might help a few people temporarily, but it ends up wasting entire generations.

The lower and middle class is also having what wealth it has stolen by the crooks at the Federal Reserve. Sadly, most don't even know that it's happening to them and that $100 they have today won't be worth $100 in the near future. This is a story of government failure on many levels. A government with too much power. A government that is invasive, oppressive and outrageously wasteful.

I wasn't calling him a racist. I was just pointing out the his assertion that "the reason people are poor is because of themselves" doesn't fly, and I used minority data to back it up.

Only 44% of Native Americans are employed in the plain states. The country was founded on stolen land and slave labor.

Pathetic public school system? Damn right. And getting even more pathetic as budgets are slashed and charter schools pop up, favoring the wealthy.

And the very small percentage of wealthy people in each racial group got richer, while the rest of them got poorer. That just shows the American dream is a giant scam (for those who didn't know so already). A few people get rich to the extent that many people get poor.

[Bud Struggle]

Bud, did the read the arcticle you posted???



ITS WRITTEN IN YOUR ARCTICLE,

of coarse America is good for rich white people. They were middle class in Cuba because they know how to work and how to make money. They are doing well in America for the exact same reason. They would be rich on he dark side of the moon is they had to go there for the same reason. Not bacause of money they brought over. There may have been some money for them in America but Castro nationalized All their Cuban assets as soon as he found them. You are spinning the notes.




Thats not what we said, what we are saying is the reason Cubans are generally better off than mexicans or central Americans is because they come from money and its easier to make it with money than without. It's easier tpo make money if you have a good strong work ethic.




It actually proves the opposite, its in your arcticle that YOU posted.It proves exactly what I said. You are just twisting things around. Nothing in the article said that the people HAD any money when they came to the US. It said their background was Middle class and rich for the most part.

Read what it says.

[Per Levy]

It proves exactly what I said. You are just twisting things around. Nothing in the article said that the people HAD any money when they came to the US. It said their background was Middle class and rich for the most part.

Read what it says.

and you really believe that the rich and middle class of cuba didnt had bank accounts in the usa? you really think they just came to the usa with clothes they wear and nothing else? oh please.


It's easier to make money if you have a good strong work ethic.

how so? i mean if you're working poor and have a strong work ethic the only thing that happens that you exploit yourself more to your boss and gain nothing out of it. also if your parents are rich no matter strong big or low your work ethic is, you probally stay rich and still get richer anyway. besides that when you're rich you of course have advantage of knowing all the other rich people(wich also helps). all this is not true for working class.

[RGacky3]

They were middle class in Cuba because they know how to work and how to make money. They are doing well in America for the exact same reason.

:laugh:, they are wealthy in America because they were wealthy in Cuba, and they were wealthy in Cuba for many many different reasons, common now, is the ability to get rich genetic???


Not bacause of money they brought over. There may have been some money for them in America but Castro nationalized All their Cuban assets as soon as he found them. You are spinning the notes.


Which he did'nt because they brought them to the US, thats the point, and yeah, when you start out with good money its easier to make it if you start with none.


It's easier tpo make money if you have a good strong work ethic.


Which Cubans have, but Mexicans and Central Americans do not???


Nothing in the article said that the people HAD any money when they came to the US. It said their background was Middle class and rich for the most part.


Yes, their background being from the upper classes basically means they had money ... Thats the definition of upper class.


Welfare dependency is like a disease for all people of all races, and it keeps people living in the gutter.

Your right, so lets get rid of the #1 form of welfarism, corporate personhood, hell, even state backed corporatization, or how about another form of welfare, handing the commons over to corporations, like natural resources, lets get rid of that.

[Bud Struggle]

and you really believe that the rich and middle class of cuba didnt had bank accounts in the usa? you really think they just came to the usa with clothes they wear and nothing else? oh please. I think a few did. But whatever they had is certainly disproportionate to the success the Cubans had in America.



how so? i mean if you're working poor and have a strong work ethic the only thing that happens that you exploit yourself more to your boss and gain nothing out of it. also if your parents are rich no matter strong big or low your work ethic is, you probally stay rich and still get richer anyway. besides that when you're rich you of course have advantage of knowing all the other rich people(wich also helps). all this is not true for working class.

Well there are a lot of factors, but for the most part--the reason money stays in certain groups is that Middle class and rich parents teach their children the right social skills to succeed. It is easier to succeed is you come from a two parent amily where both parents are college educated. It's not so much a matter of money--but the ability to speak and write well, socially interact well and then be willing to apply yourself. Schools, of course, can do that job to an extent but for the most part those lessons come from parents.

That's a good chunk of what success is all about. Actually most of those skills are learned or at least inculcated in Pre school years.

[citizen of industry]

I think a few did. But whatever they had is certainly disproportionate to the success the Cubans had in America.




Well there are a lot of factors, but for the most part--the reason money stays in certain groups is that Middle class and rich parents teach their children the right social skills to succeed. It is easier to succeed is you come from a two parent amily where both parents are college educated. It's not so much a matter of money--but the ability to speak and write well, socially interact well and then be willing to apply yourself. Schools, of course, can do that job to an extent but for the most part those lessons come from parents.

That's a good chunk of what success is all about. Actually most of those skills are learned or at least inculcated in Pre school years.

The middle class has the luxury to teach their children the social skills to "succeed" because they have the wealth to attend university, provide adequate shelter, food, and education to their children. A working class family doesn't have this luxury. And you'll notice the middle class is rapidly diminishing in the US, while corporate profits and profits to the wealthiest are rapidly amassing.

[Bud Struggle]

:laugh:, they are wealthy in America because they were wealthy in Cuba, and they were wealthy in Cuba for many many different reasons, common now, is the ability to get rich genetic??? No, they knew how to succeed.


Which he did'nt because they brought them to the US, thats the point, and yeah, when you start out with good money its easier to make it if you start with none. It's NOT about the money. It's about the skill set needed to make money.


Which Cubans have, but Mexicans and Central Americans do not??? The Cubans came here with the correct skill set, The Mexicans and CA's are picking it up. I don't doubt they will be as successful as the Cubans in time. As a matter of fact--they should be definitely more sucessful than the Whites in no time at all.


Yes, their background being from the upper classes basically means they had money ... Thats the definition of upper class. They HAD money when they were in Cuba--they lost the money in the Revolution. And then made it back in America.

[RGacky3]

It's not so much a matter of money

No yes it is, paying for college, start up fees, being able to try again if you fail at first, connections, the ability to pay for a place to stay and a base to work from, and juts the fact that with money its easier to make money.

Your basically making a bullshit unprovable moral argument, when the material facts are obvious.

[citizen of industry]

No, they knew how to succeed.

It's NOT about the money. It's about the skill set needed to make money.

The Cubans came here with the correct skill set, The Mexicans and CA's are picking it up. I don't doubt they will be as successful as the Cubans in time. As a matter of fact--they should be definitely more sucessful than the Whites in no time at all.

They HAD money when they were in Cuba--they lost the money in the Revolution. And then made it back in America.

This is ridiculous. You are completely ignoring economic factors and the greater challenges Hispanic workers face coming to the US. One of which is refugee status given to Cuban migrants because of political factors, and denied Mexican immigrants, who then have to work illegally, pay disproportianate amount of income through sales tax, work without the labor protections and laws afforded to Cuban workers. And before you go on ranting about how "they shouldn't have come to this country," consider NAFTA destroyed the agriculture of Mexico and their jobs, and forced them to migrate here.

[Bud Struggle]

The middle class has the luxury to teach their children the social skills to "succeed" because they have the wealth to attend university, provide adequate shelter, food, and education to their children. A working class family doesn't have this luxury. And you'll notice the middle class is rapidly diminishing in the US, while corporate profits and profits to the wealthiest are rapidly amassing.

It comes before the university level. Money doesn't get in the way of qualified people wanting to get in to college. I was just looking at Darthmouth with my daughter, they for example provide $100 scholorship for people with incomes below $75,000. I assume most other good universities do the same.

No, it begings in childhood. People just have to take time with their kids. That's really what it's all about. And I do agree==the tax stucture on wealthy American does have to be changed.

[Bud Struggle]

This is ridiculous. You are completely ignoring economic factors and the greater challenges Hispanic workers face coming to the US. One of which is refugee status given to Cuban migrants because of political factors, and denied Mexican immigrants, who then have to work illegally, pay disproportianate amount of income through sales tax, work without the labor protections and laws afforded to Cuban workers. And before you go on ranting about how "they shouldn't have come to this country," consider NAFTA destroyed the agriculture of Mexico and their jobs, and forced them to migrate here.


No, no, no. I could care less who comes here. My parents were immigrents to the US. And there are some illegals, but most Mexicans are American citizens or have green cards. They have the same rights and benefits as other Americans. It's going to take a while, but I think they will do just fine in America.

And I agree--NAFTA was not a good idea.

[W1N5T0N]

our voting system
gov elected -> 3 years no shit is done
just before elections (campaign) shit gets done
gov elected -> .....

:thumbdown:

[Dumb]

It comes before the university level. Money doesn't get in the way of qualified people wanting to get in to college. I was just looking at Darthmouth with my daughter, they for example provide $100 scholorship for people with incomes below $75,000. I assume most other good universities do the same.

No, it begings in childhood. People just have to take time with their kids. That's really what it's all about. And I do agree==the tax stucture on wealthy American does have to be changed.

$100? Whoop-de-frickin'-doo.

[Bud Struggle]

$100? Whoop-de-frickin'-doo.

100% Sorry about that.

[Drosophila]

our voting system
gov elected -> 3 years no shit is done
just before elections (campaign) shit gets done
gov elected -> .....

:thumbdown:

In other words, shit never gets done. And when it does get done it is twisted into something negative, and the American people reject it when election season comes. It's a never-ending cycle.

[Dumb]

100% Sorry about that.

Ha ha, that's fair enough! Sorry for my caustic response.