Frank Page's SBC: Eisenhower or Demint Republicans

[Neil Heath]

Gene, if my memory is accurate, CBS news reported the other night that 70% of welfare recipients are white. I don't know if they mentioned what percent were children. I believe that a large percentage are children, which means they have no control over leaving welfare. The stereotype of most being black is far from true.

I had to chuckle when you said "Don't try to judge and describe everything only on your local experience!" and then began to describe your own experience...again. Ed has also laid out his experience with the system, and I find his experiences as credible as yours. I don't doubt that they are facts to you, but that doesn't make them any more than local examples. It doesn't prove any of your allegations are similar for the whole country. Can you find studies that prove most churches conduct seminars on how to abuse welfare, for example? I've never heard of that. I assume you've attended one or talked to those who have. Do you have the number of those being conducted each week in your area? I also assume you mean they are teaching people how to game the system, as opposed to explaining benefits available to those who are eligible for help and not receiving it.

Much of your post sounded like typical Southern stereotyping to me. I've heard similar things from white southerners all my life. If you can document with sources that would be appreciated. I'm sure there have been any number of studies done on the welfare system, its recipients, and its abuses, as well as the ways people become trapped in the system and are penalized financially for trying to leave it behind.

Neil

[Gene Scarborough]

Neil---

If it were typical southern stereotyping, I would not be participating in it. The ONE thing I was not permitted to do growing up was to use the "N" word nor disrespect anyone, no matter what their color or origin. My father and his family were dirt poor and even the poor folks looked down on them as being poor! They worked their way out of it and each of the aunts and uncles amounted to something and never took handouts or government assistance.

I am not familiar with the study you cite. I am most familiar with discussions had with good and hard working black folks in Rocky Mount who hate the tit-sucking of their brothers and sisters. It was from them I get my information about church seminars on milking welfare.

I am, at this point, questioning why we still have so many on Title XX funds after some 5 generations of help offered them plus the advantages of minority hiring and enlisting in government work. My own son had to wait until 2 days before the cutoff to get a shot at the US Coast Guard. The recruiter told all the white boys they had minority and female quotas to fill when the ideal candidate was a decent and able white young man.

You make you own call, but what I say has nothing to do with prejudice. Just a reality check on what is going on in my neck of the woods, and it's not a commendation of what Title XX has done to help. I have had some of the best workers of color work for me and I pay them a good wage for such because I don't want to lose them. They are happy with their treatment and I refuse to build a business nor wealth on the backs of poor people struggling in a real world. If they work, they advance and make more than they make shoveling hamburgers or working at Wal Mart!

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: Gene, writes of his workers "I refuse to build a business nor wealth on the backs of poor people struggling in a real world. If they work, they advance and make more than they make shoveling hamburgers or working at Wal Mart! "

I am so very glad to know that he is willing to pay more to folk engaged in one of the four most dangerous jobs in the economy, than people " shoveling hamburgers or working at Wal Mart! " are paid.

[Gene Scarborough]

Ed---

Your constant prodding is getting on my nerves, man!!!

The tree industry has it's dangers, but proper procedures keep it safe. The "most dangerous" part of it is out in the woods with monster machines or on steep hillsides. I don't even want to do that! Reasonable danger is acceptable---guaranteed death during the year to someone is another. My climber, who is in the most high-risk part, gets $30-50 an hour. I'll put the spikes on you and give you the same if you got the guts!

When you decide to be civil and discuss the real issue of overblown welfare, I will engage. Until then:

[Sandy]

I'm not sure where things stand as of 2012, since we've been through a recession that has been harder on African Americans with regard to unemployment, but the 2006 welfare figures, according to Wikianswers, looks like this:
Based on the 2006 TOTAL population of each respective race in the United States, it is:
37.8% white* (37.8% of the white population is on welfare)

27.78% black* (27.78% of the black population is on welfare)

11.47% Hispanic* ** (11.47% of the Hispanic population is on welfare)

[Gene Scarborough]

Sandy---

Thanks for some concrete figures to discuss on the concern over continuing wefare over temporary help.

Any time any society is supporting 1/4-2/3 of the populace through welfare, something is badly wrong!

The immediate problem is a busted economy:

* jobs shipped overseas in the production line area
* people who simply will not train for better jobs
* the total failure of the "trickle down" concept and separation of rich from poor in the last 4 years
(it is coming out on Romney today that he pays taxes as the same rate as a fireman despite being a millionaire)

We are in a mess / we continue in the same mess / not one dab of statesmanship seems to exist in government right now.

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed---

Your constant prodding is getting on my nerves, man!!!

The tree industry has it's dangers, but proper procedures keep it safe. The "most dangerous" part of it is out in the woods with monster machines or on steep hillsides. I don't even want to do that! Reasonable danger is acceptable---guaranteed death during the year to someone is another. My climber, who is in the most high-risk part, gets $30-50 an hour. I'll put the spikes on you and give you the same if you got the guts!

When you decide to be civil and discuss the real issue of overblown welfare, I will engage. Until then:

Ed: Thanks for the offer Gene but you don't seem to have enough business to keep you busy. And I put away the gaffs when I left Korea. Plus my Rheumatologist would probably drop me as a patient.

And Gene I didn't know there was a set tax rate for firemen. Generally taxes are based on income rather than net worth.

[Gene Scarborough]

Picking the nit never ceases, Ed!!!

Hope you hard work picking nits keeps you warm tonight as cold invades NY State.

[Sandy]

Sandy---

Thanks for some concrete figures to discuss on the concern over continuing wefare over temporary help.

Any time any society is supporting 1/4-2/3 of the populace through welfare, something is badly wrong!

The immediate problem is a busted economy:

* jobs shipped overseas in the production line area
* people who simply will not train for better jobs
* the total failure of the "trickle down" concept and separation of rich from poor in the last 4 years
(it is coming out on Romney today that he pays taxes as the same rate as a fireman despite being a millionaire)

We are in a mess / we continue in the same mess / not one dab of statesmanship seems to exist in government right now.

Yeah. You're right.

The problem is that there is very little motivation to train for a better job. During the Clinton administration, records were set in terms of job creation and growth, and overall, the ability to work in one's chosen field, and have opportunity for advancement, was available for those who put some effort into their career. Then poof, along comes an administration bought and paid for by energy companies and investors who work for companies like Bain Capital, which produce nothing, and exist solely to bust up smaller companies and profiteer off of picking up the pieces. The agenda was to put the middle class in its place and reduce its power in order to increase profits by forcing wages down, reducing or eliminating benefits and exporting jobs to third world countries. They've tried to hide behind the rhetoric, but the evidence is clear. Over 90% of the jobs created during the Bush Administration pay minimum wage, or just slightly more than that, and even if husband and wife are both working, things that every generation since World War II has been able to afford--a home, a car, and the ability to raise a family without help from welfare or government assistance--are now out of reach for a significant portion of the population. Not only that, but the loopholes and exemptions they created in their tax structure shifted the burden of paying for the things government provides that allows business to operate safely and make a profit, to the same middle class. And they've paid Limbaugh and Beck very well to pump out propaganda that tells people they aren't experiencing this and it is a figment of their imagination.

The unfortunate outcome of the Obama administration has been a relative ineffectiveness in reversing the trend. Whether they just don't have the resources to do it, or they are also influenced and "purchased" by the corporate interests, I don't know, but they've turned the economy around and it is growing again, and the stock market, which is an indicator of how the prosperous and wealthy are doing, is back up over 12,000, which the Republicans claimed would never happen under Obama. The only people who are still paying for the damage are those in the middle class, as usual.

And now you have people who actually want to vote for someone like Mitt Romney, who pays less taxes than most in the middle class, and whose policies resemble Robin Hood in reverse--rob from everyone to give to the 1% who already have 90% of it. A vote for a Republican is a vote to put yourself into poverty, if you are in the middle class.

[KeithE]

Well said Sandy.

Maybe the revelation of Romney paying only ~15% in taxes (due to his income coming from investments - a rather easy way) will get capital gains taxes and dividend taxes back up where they belong 35-60%. We should be valuing hard work that produce useful products, not easy-come riches to those that already have.

[Gene Scarborough]

I have turned the history page back to my SC farmer Grandaddy suffering in the Depression (as far as policos go today is "Great Recession"--none of them obviously runs a small business) as FDR came in. He ran on virtually the same promises as Obama, but had a greater willingness to push his agenda through.

Just like Obama, he got the position and then had to do something with it! The most plenteous small business in America at that point was the family farm. Grandaddy and his like had bales of cotton on the porch worth only $3 because of over-production. FDR came up with the Soil Bank. Since no cotton was needed that year, they offered the farmer their "New Deal:" If you will not raise a crop, we will pay you right now the profit you should have made from it!

So---in April Grandaddy got the check. He rushed right downtown and paid every bill he owed and walked out with cash in his pocket (step 1 / first week). The businesses paid their suppliers and ordered more goods (step 2 / 2nd week). Those suppliers called back in their work force to meet their orders (step 3 up / third week).

By starting at the small business level the economy immediately took a first step toward recovery within a month!!!!!

Admittedly, WWII was the biggest economic booster. We started war production and sales to Britian and the Far East. Soon Pearl Harbor happened and millions had a military paycheck that didn't bounce.

The other thing FDR did was to implement reforms in banking and stocks. The FDIC insured accounts and the most crooked investor on Wall Street, Jack Kennedy, was named head of the SEC. When people protested, FDR simply said, "It takes a crook to know a crook---and Kennedy knows every trick in the book which needs regulating."

So what brought the crash 4 years ago = years of deregulation and forgetting all the SEC rules with derivatives (crooks had returned and were getting rich with their deals). Take a good look at the HBO movie running now entitled "Too Big To Fail."

What has brought us out = NOTHING!!!!!!

Frankly, I'm sick of excuses / bought politicians / undue funding of campaigns by corporations which are now "persons" according to the Supreme Court recent decision!!!!

[Stephen Fox]

And Lee Atwater's Daughter, a senior at Furman allegedly endorsed Gingrich on CNN yesterday

Campaign Schedule
GOP Candidates in SC for the Jan. 21 Primary
Jan. 18. SANTORUM -- 10:45 a.m., "Faith, Family and Freedom" Town Hall at the Beacon Drive-In, 255 John B White, Sr. Blvd., Spartanburg; 12:45 p.m., Town Hall at the Capitol Theatre, 104 South Public Square, Laurens; 5 p.m., Town Hall at Summit Point Conference Center, 805 Spartan Blvd., Spartanburg; 8 p.m., Personhood USA Forum at the Hilton Hotel, 45 West Orchard Park Drive, Greenville.
Jan. 18. ROMNEY -- 11 a.m. at Andrews Field House on Wofford College campus, Spartanburg.
Jan. 18. GINGRICH -- Campaigning in Winnsboro, Columbia, North Augusta and 4:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m., Easley Town Hall Meeting, Jimmy's Restaurant, 5403 Calhoun Memorial Highway, Easley; also 7 p.m. - 8:30 p.m., Personhood USA Presidential Prolife Forum, Hilton Hotel, 45 W. Orchard Park Drive, Greenville.
Jan. 18. PERRY -- Noon, Pizza Factory, 109 South Main St., Mauldin; 2 p.m., Bob Jones University, 1700 Wade Hampton Blvd., Greenville; 5:30 p.m., Southern Thyme, 219 Trade St., Greer.
Jan. 19. PERRY -- Campaigning in Charleston.
Jan. 19. SANTORUM -- Campaigning in Charleston; also 8 p.m., participating in the CNN Republican Presidential debate in Charleston.
Jan. 19. GINGRICH -- Campaigning in Bluffton, Beaufort, Walterboro and Charleston.
Jan. 20. GINGRICH -- Campaigning in Charleston and Hartsville.
Jan. 20. PERRY -- Campaigning in Lexington; also 4:30 p.m., Wade's Restaurant, 1000 N. Pine St. in Spartanburg.

[Stephen Fox]

http://lexington-sc.patch.com/articles/ ... look-ahead

http://www.ginnybrant.com

I understand Eric Metaxas was somewhere on the grounds for this meeting, the larger group, the plenary session, but haven't been able to confirm that yet

And Sally Atwater heads Students for Newt:

http://usaslate.org/southcarolina/updat ... -team.html

Andrea Mitchell and Sally Atwater on U Tube. I hope to meet Sally before she leaves Furman; hoping some friends there will introduce her to Stephens and Giberson's The Anointed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es7dVXAJsvQ

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archi ... _carolina/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... two_women/

[Stephen Fox]

Or The Headline could be: From Adrian Rogers to Rick Santorum

Or At The Ranch with Judge Pressler

Or Coke Stevenson to Santorum: Hills on Which to Die

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/baptists-joi ... -cms-19113

[Gene Scarborough]

Stephen---

Here we are discussing an important part of this topic---and there you are giving links and no real inspiration with your views on what is going on in SC.

WHATUP????---as my grandson would say!

[Stephen Fox]

Ginny Brant answered an email today with some interesting news. She spoke, then sat beside Rick Santorum's wife at the Ladies Tea Party get together in S.C. over the weekend. I sent her a link to Colin Harris good piece on Nixon and Martin King, and www.ginnybrant.com reminded me of Nixon's Mother's Quaker ancestry, Her remaining assertions were questionable on Nixon's legacy and race; but she did confirm Eric Metaxas spoke at the Tea Party Consortium over the weekend in S.C.; the Bonhoeffer biographer

[Sandy]

Or The Headline could be: From Adrian Rogers to Rick Santorum

Or At The Ranch with Judge Pressler

Or Coke Stevenson to Santorum: Hills on Which to Die

http://www.ethicsdaily.com/baptists-joi ... -cms-19113

I don't know if it is a sign of things to come, but it would appear that, when it comes to secular politics, there are some self-proclaimed "leaders" in the religious right who can't seem to get their "followers" in line. Apparently Pressler and Land in particular, and Perkins and Dobson as well, do not have much influence when it comes to making an endorsement.

I mean, who do they think they are, that they can gather at Pressler's ranch and decide for the rest of conservative Christians who they need to support as a presidential candidate? America is not an oligarchy, and one of the things that both Southern Baptists and many conservative Evangelicals are going to have to learn is that Southern style, good-ole-boy influence peddling doesn't work very well with people under 40, and with just about anyone who wasn't "borned and reared" in Dixie.

[Stephen Fox]

http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/7072/53/

Tonight in Greenville S.C. the ralley at the Hyatt Regency in Orchard Park centers around Personhood. Who will investigate Charles Pickering Allied Defense Fund on this matter and make it plain to folks in the SBC pew what is at stake.

Eric Metaxas, the Bonhoeffer biographer is sidling up to S.C. Tea Partiers and was one of their featured speakers over the Weekend; not at Pressler ranch, but with in S.C. ralley

[Gene Scarborough]

Thanks, Stephen, for being more incisive. I appreciate it.

Sandy, it seems all these "movers and shakers" think they can hold secret meetings and then "get some." So far it has been to generate deception and grief to those of us who used to take pride in our orginized religion separation of church and state---but the right to think for ourselves privately or as simple citizens with faith.

[Stephen Fox]

http://sbcplodder.blogspot.com/2012/01/ ... -meet.html

[Sandy]

I don't think you'll see conservative Evangelicals rally around Santorum because these few self-proclaimed "leaders" met and decided on it. The polling in recent days would, in fact, suggest that there is as much division now as there was before, and that conservative Evangelicals are not as much of a solid bloc, when it comes to specific candidates, that everyone seems to think. I don't even think they are all that solid behind the GOP any more, especially among the younger generation. I've been in Christian education for quite some time now, and I have about 250 facebook friends who are former students of mine, ranging in age from current students as young as 16 to some who are just now turning 40. What I see among them is a very diverse perspective when it comes to politics, including a number of them who are proving that it is very possible to hold conservative Christian views in matters of theology and faith practice, while at the same time be staunch defenders of and supporters of President Obama and the Democratic party.

I think it is quite ironic that the gathering at Pressler's ranch, which I guess would be the core of the core of the wealthiest of the wealthy in the conservative Evangelical wing of the party, which means they are also consulted and stroked by their pastors and church leaders in the megachurches they attend, chose an individual who is about as far away from being an Evangelical Christian in his faith practice as Mitt Romney is. And I think their choice is clear proof that, at least these individuals and their potential constituency, are far more interested in the economic advantages they can buy with their money and influence than they are in genuine faith principles being part of a candidate's resume. Ron Paul is a conservative Evangelical by definition, a member of a conservative Southern Baptist church affiliated with the more conservative Baptist convention in Texas. He wasn't even considered. Last time around, these same "leaders" shied away from Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister and former pastor. Paul and Huckabee have one thing in common. Their economic policy favors the middle class and requires the wealthy to pay their fare share.

I think what will eventually happen is that Romney will buy the nomination with his enormous super-PAC and his gigantic fortune, and most of these guys will be happy because he's the candidate who will, if he gets in the White House, drain the middle class right into their wealthy, bulging pockets. The true party conservatives, and Evangelicals of conviction will stay home or find a third party candidate to support, possibly Ron Paul who is even now making noises like he might run as an independent if Romney is nominated. That will seal Obama's second term.

[Gene Scarborough]

As the Church Lady on SNL said: "Now isn't that interesting!!!!"

[Stephen Fox]

Dbl posting here as these remarks and this link also fits the conversation at Takeover Thread as the place it has now gotten

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispa ... end_test_/

Check the embedded links for Richard Land's current hope to Save America were it not for the adultery. If you follow Brian Kaylor at ethicsdaily.com I think it safe to say this is where SBC CP dollars are going, funding the salary of Richard Land.

And if you Study Pressler from the days of Coke Stevenson--need some help from Gourley and Aaron Weaver here to drive this point home--the takeover of the SBC was just a foundational move for Pressler; his real Concern is to bring the Texas Regulars and the Exxon Oil Politics of Houston to the rest of the country. Several conversations with Chandler Davidson yet to be had about Pressler and how he got to The Ranch last weekend.

Stephen Fox, One Day before the 2012 S.C. Presidential Primary

[Stephen Fox]

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... -go-again/

What about Richard Land?