David Brooks: Republicans Can’t Win Without Waitress (Read: Single) Moms

by W.F. Price on April 14, 2012

While listening to NPR yesterday, I heard a political discussion about the presidential race, and the two pundits, E.J. Dionne and David Brooks, were offering their opinions on Mitt Romney’s speech at the NRA convention. While discussing the demographics of the race, Brooks opined that Romney needs to overwhelm Obama with white voters in order to win, and said that the group he really needs to focus on is high school educated women, the so-called waitress moms. This is the demographic that is having children out of wedlock at very high rates, and also most likely to be divorced. What Brooks is saying is that Republicans need to cater to these women. And he strongly suggests that what Romney needs to do is offer them government support. i.e. “Big Daddy” government programs.

If you listen to Brooks on NPR’s audio clip, you’ll hear him almost sneer as he mentions Romney’s “freedom and liberty” theme (at about 5:00). He says:

Well, if you’re trying to appeal to high school-educated women, that’s not the message that works. That’s you’re on your own, sister. And that will not work. And so, I’m a little mystified by the very libertarian theme he’s got.

He’s probably right. If Romney wants working class white women to vote for him, he’s got to play the same game white Republicans in the south do. This means he’s got to bash single fathers and promise free goodies to the single moms, i.e. he’s got to promise them a government husband/daddy. I suppose it’s a catch-22 for the Republicans. You bash the men and promise goodies to the single moms, and the men will turn their backs on you or refuse to vote (this is why I think McCain lost — lots of men simply didn’t vote). You support individual responsibility and the single moms will reject you. This just shows how deep and pervasive the divide between the sexes has become in this country. What a mess.

{ 68 comments… read them below or add one }

David H. Fucktrelle-Male Feminist Extraordinaire™ April 14, 2012 at 11:23

well i suppoert Hugo Schwyzer for prez!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9
Anonymous Reader April 14, 2012 at 11:28

Listening to a couple of lefties on NPR discussing what the other party needs to do to win an election is generally going to be more about what the ruling party wants than about reality.

Catering to babymommas may work in the short run, but in the long run it is self defeating. Because sooner or later, you run out of other people’s money.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 69 Thumb down 2
AmStrat April 14, 2012 at 11:39

You can cater to women’s desires or wants and give them EVERYTHING they want.

They’ll still vote for obama.

Republicans should REALLY be courting the male vote.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 80 Thumb down 2
Steve_85 April 14, 2012 at 11:51

It’s too late at this point. It’s all over bar the waiting.

Australias economy is being propped up by mining, but every western economy in the world is slowing or crashing. The femmies are about to run out of other peoples money to spend.

We’re about to see a lot of fish trying to buy a bicycle.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 76 Thumb down 0
keyster April 14, 2012 at 11:55

“What a mess.”
I concur with that sentiment.

The western swing states need Hispanics and the other swing states need women and seniors. Florida is the big catch with 29 EV’s up for grabs.

This sums up the electoral vote situation nicely, for those that are interested.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/04/14/delegate_math

David Brooks is the “conservative voice” of the New York Times.
EJ Dionne is the “moderate” liberal.
IOW David Brooks is the liberal and EJ Dionne is the Radical liberal,
making Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd seem reasonable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 4
Senior Manchild April 14, 2012 at 12:06

Here´s to hoping everyone forsakes white men and then a united white men´s party can win; maybe not in 2012 but eventually there will be no other option.

So much pandering to the females and minorities by democrats and even republicans,

wouldn´t it make sense for America´s third party to shamelessly pander to men( particularly white men)? Their ideology is way more in line with men anyway.

Let´s hope that the duopoly( republicans, democrats) really gets into it and sacrifice themselves for the special interests; if they could give each other a fatal blow, maybe we could get them under control. Split the group indentity vote with democrats and republicans and men win with libertarians.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 5
Lovekraft April 14, 2012 at 12:17

Progressive ideologies have been hammered into the masses for so long that trying to get them to see into the long-term seems fruitless.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Eric Wolf April 14, 2012 at 12:22

@ Anonymous Reader. The thing is, you don’t EVER run out of other people’s money if you’re the ruling elite.

They have the equivalent of a no-limit Mastercard issued under the name of John Q. Taxpayer; who can’t even report the card lost or stolen, or refuse payment on a bill.

Makes me glad that I only work under-the-table. I’d advise any man reasonably able to do this to join me. Starve the beast in any way you can.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 45 Thumb down 0
Brendan April 14, 2012 at 12:27

The GOP are pussies and feminists. Brooks is the same as all the rest, and actually worse than average. These are the DC suburbanite WK back-door feminist neo-Victorians that are as much to blame for the current mess as the radfems are.

To hell with them all. Revolution is needed, not pandering to “waitress moms”. David Brooks is a mangina of the first order.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 1
David D. Davidson April 14, 2012 at 12:28

“Romney…very libertarian”

What world is NPR broadcast from again?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Senior Manchild April 14, 2012 at 12:37

This pandering to waitresses is useful. If native men could only be rejected enough by not only the democrats but also the republicans competing for what amounts to probably less than 55 % of the population, the other 45 % might largely come together eventually under one tent. Maybe as little as 35 % is all that is needed. It could be beneficial if republicans would hop on this train.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Zorro April 14, 2012 at 12:38

“This just shows how deep and pervasive the divide between the sexes has become in this country. What a mess.”

This is a mess that will not be fixed. This charade of a society will collapse and out of the ashes something new will arise. I don’t mean to get racial, but white Western culture has hit the wall, and feminism is to blame. Some other patriarchy will take over; my guess is first Latin/Hispanic and in the 22nd Century: the Muslims.

If you repealed the 19th Amendment tomorrow, everything would self-correct in 40 years. So I guess we’re all supremely fucked.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 0
Senior Manchild April 14, 2012 at 12:39

Let´s quit trying to save republicans

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3
Anonymous Reader April 14, 2012 at 12:50

@ Anonymous Reader. The thing is, you don’t EVER run out of other people’s money if you’re the ruling elite.

Well, other people have claimed that in the past. I bet Louis XVI of France thought something along those lines.

They have the equivalent of a no-limit Mastercard issued under the name of John Q. Taxpayer; who can’t even report the card lost or stolen, or refuse payment on a bill.

Maybe that was true 30 years ago, but it ain’t true now. The runs on debt now. There are limits to how long a country can run on debt.

Just ask the Greeks. They are turning to barter via Craigslist type web sites, that is how broke that country is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
BoxANT April 14, 2012 at 13:00

Perhaps it’s the political-cynic in me, but I would rather see Obama elected over Romney, if only to speed up the process. I mean, it’s not like Romney has the political will/means to change anything of significance. The only reason why his talking points seem libertarian (he is not a libertarian by any means), is that he’s trying to get Ron Paul and Tea Party support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Just Some Canadian April 14, 2012 at 13:01

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 42
RICanuck April 14, 2012 at 13:24

David Brooks and ‘Just Some Canadian’ can make one feel embarassed to be Canadian. David Brooks has the excuse of being a fairly good natured non-threatening right winger. The NYT had to go to Canada to find one.

Just Some Canadian must live in the Canadian media bubble, where every US hospital is surounded by the decomposing corpses of people without health insurance, and every Walmart parking lot is littered with the bodies of people who lost the gunfights to get parking spots. That is the Canadian media perception of life in America.

Just Some Canadian, can you give some non-Canadian sourced example of the GOP telling women to f**k off? Not wanting to pay a Georgetown law student’s birth control doesn’t count. Especially if you are trying to tell me. The Scarborough native’s answer would be, ‘Just swallow!’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 3
Mercer April 14, 2012 at 13:49

I don’t see where Brooks mentioned the marital status of women
Romney needs to reach. The GOP tax cut agenda offers nothing to low income parents of either sex. Because of child tax credits and exemptions they pay little income tax if any. If poor women are cool to the supply side agenda and war with Iran they are being sensible. If the GOP cared about the working class they would change trade laws and freeze immigration instead of talking about more tax cuts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Avenger April 14, 2012 at 13:58

Half the people don’t vote. Just register 5% of the male segment that doesn’t vote and the republicans win.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Wulf April 14, 2012 at 14:52

I’ve always referred to NPR as National Proletariat Radio.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Survivorman April 14, 2012 at 14:59

I’ve read that 51% of registered voters are female.

ANY candidate – that hopes to win – will have to kiss their asses. Dems are *much* better at this than Republicans.

Just had a thought – howsabout a 3rd “Vampire” Party? That would clinch the Twilight Fan votes.. /sarcasm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Not so much April 14, 2012 at 15:08

David Brooks is farther to the Left than even some Democrats. He only calls himself a Republican to keep a unique brand carved out for himself in the MSM.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Not so much April 14, 2012 at 15:08

David Brooks is farther to the Left than even some Democrats. He only calls himself a Republican to keep a unique brand carved out for himself in the MSM.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Avenger April 14, 2012 at 15:10

This is completely misleading. All it mens is that she’s smarter than other 4 year olds. It doesn’t mean she’s like Hawking. Many girls are precocious where their mental age is more advanced than their actual age but as they grow up they hit a wall where their mental age and actual age equalise and just turn out to be ordinary.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/mensa-member-4-years-old-iq-159-a-point-einstein-stephen-hawking-article-1.1061530

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
MKP April 14, 2012 at 15:57

“Half the people don’t vote. Just register 5% of the male segment that doesn’t vote and the republicans win.”

Ok. And then what?

The Republicans had the White House between 2000 and 2008, and also controlled both houses of Congress for half of that time. And what did they do with it?

We need a massive reduction of the size and reach of the federal government. I haven’t seen any evidence that they truly powerful people in either political party have any intentions towards that end.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
migu April 14, 2012 at 16:05

Stealing is wrong. Unless you’ve got the votes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Avenger April 14, 2012 at 17:27

MKP-“Half the people don’t vote. Just register 5% of the male segment that doesn’t vote and the republicans win.”

Ok. And then what?

I didn’t say it would solve anything, I was just showing how a tactic could be used to win an election.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
MKP April 14, 2012 at 17:56

“I didn’t say it would solve anything, I was just showing how a tactic could be used to win an election.

Alright, fair enough. Higher voter turnout among men would certainly be to the Republican’s advantage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Thomas Tell-Truth April 14, 2012 at 17:57

The republicans will NEVER win the women’s vote. Perhaps some day they will remember there is another 50% of the population that no one is paying much attention to…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader April 14, 2012 at 18:17

There’s a clear feedback loop here. Women who depend upon Big Alpha government for their material security are going to vote for whatever party promises more goodies. The government is funded mainly by debt. Paying off debt requires an expanding economy. An expanding economy ultimately requires beta men to be fully invested in that economy. But the endless catering to women is shoving beta men further off to the side. Plus babymommas tend to raise feral children; girls who become babymommas and boys who become thugs. Who pays the taxes to support the ever growing number of babymommas and their thug “boyfriends”?

Neither group is exactly the best material for doctors, for engineers, for water purification system operators, etc. TFH has claimed that democracy has a half life once women get the vote. It is beginning to look like he’s right.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
Eric April 14, 2012 at 18:18

RI Canuck:
Actually, David Brooks is, like most of the US media, not a ‘national’ of any country. He’s simply the property of his masters on Madison Avenue and is paid to put out propaganda that the electioneers think will be useful. He’s probably writing off a script sent to him by some so-called ‘think tank’ and wouldn’t be able to give an independent opinion about the weather without getting permission first.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Eric April 14, 2012 at 18:25

Brendan:

The revolution has already happened, and the revolutionaries are the ones in control. What we really need is somebody like Cromwell, Washington, or Napoleon who’ll give the who’ll give the system a good scouring of all the leeches clinging to it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
DOC April 14, 2012 at 18:36

You ought to do a post about Kevin Allen. Just a suggestion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eric April 14, 2012 at 18:38

Zorro:
Your prediction is probably the most likely outcome, though I’d put my bets on the Chinese, rather than the Muslims or Latinos (although those cultures will be stronger than ourselves).

The only marriage demographic going up in the US is between American men and foreign-born women. The future ‘Americans’ are going to be mostly products of these mixed unions. They’ll also likely be the productive and educated backbone of whatever of our culture’s left.

Meanwhile, the feminised women will keep breeding with their thuggish and dysfunctional bad-boys, and spawning what will end up as a permanent underclass. This underclass will be just about on par with outright savages (in some cities, they are already manifesting their presence). The downside of this paradigm shift is that the ‘security state’ is also—out of sheer necessity—going to become permanent too. I don’t think it’s at all unlikely that a future America will have walled cities like Mediaeval Europe had, where people rarely travel out of, except by air or train to other walled cities.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0
TFH April 14, 2012 at 19:42

Democracy has a life-cycle, after which a feminist police state follows. Misandry follows democracy just as assuredly as grey hair follows youth.

This is because while men vote for what benefits all people, women only vote for what benefits women.

There have only been about 5 countries that have had 90+ years of women voting, and another 10-15 countries that are 60-90 years in. That is FAR too little of a track record off of which to conclude that women voting actually ‘works’.

Make two lists. One, which ranks countries based on how many years women have had the right to vote. The second, which ranks the prosperity of those countries.

Countries that score high on both lists, will have the most misandry (the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc.).

Countries that score high on one list, but not the other, will have some misandry, but not as pervasive as countries that score high on both.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2
Avenger April 14, 2012 at 19:52

There’s a clear feedback loop here. Women who depend upon Big Alpha government for their material security are going to vote for whatever party promises more goodies

Promise them anything and deliver nothing.Once you get into power start dismantling everything :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Avenger April 14, 2012 at 20:01

That’s right Promise Her Anything :)

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

It’s funny because she’s supposed to be a widow in the film but I think that everyone at the time figued she was just a knocked up unwed mother. There was censorship and you couldn’t even do that back then.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Doc April 14, 2012 at 20:57

Why would any sane person listen to a liberal tell you what the Republican candidate needs to do to win? They want him to lose. All he has to do is say, “Are you better off then you were 4 years ago?”

Nothing else is needed. Obama has done everything so that any “un-named Lawn Gnome” can win just because it’s NOT OBAMA. One of the Republican candidates should have their name listed as “Not Obama” – he/she/it would win by a land-slide…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Avenger April 14, 2012 at 22:44

Eric-that’s not the future, that’s now!

‘The only marriage demographic going up in the US is between American men and foreign-born women. The future ‘Americans’ are going to be mostly products of these mixed unions’

Well, I have noticed men recently with females who appear to be from the Far East but there are probably more with foreign women from Europe that just blend in so I can’t say how many because the local females don’t have that typical chunky fugly look you find in most of the country so it’s hard to tell.

“They’ll also likely be the productive and educated backbone of whatever of our culture’s left.”

That’s been happening for 40 years at least. In fact, I can recall reading an article about it and how people were breeding themselves into classes where professionals were only marrying professionals. Of course, the very top and bottom have always been doing this but this was about the very large group in the middle becoming more segregated. You see Dr Paul. He’s in his 70′s and has been married to a woman for 50 years who from what I can tell has basically been a housewife her entire life. You never see this today. A board certified gynecologist like Paul today would only be married to another professional or at the very least, a nurse or something like that.The large middle group in the country is becoming more and more stratified . You’ll end up with one group that will usually stay married and bring up normal educated kids and another of unwed mothers living a hectic life with feral kids.

“I don’t think it’s at all unlikely that a future America will have walled cities like Mediaeval Europe had, where people rarely travel out of, except by air or train to other walled cities.”

It already exists. They’re called gated communities. In fact, whole areas are like gated communities except without the gates and it’s more subtle. There’s vitually no way for the underclass to live there because every bit of property is taken and there are no rentals. Large pieces of property are designated nature preserves; golf courses take up a lot of property; if there’s a reservoir and old aquaduct the entire area around all of this is protected property where you can’t build; some areas even manage to get half the town designated “wetlands” where you can’t build which is odd because it’s hilly and covered with forests.

“except by air or train”

You rarely see a member of the underclass on commuter trains, it’s all professionals and businessmen. So people have effectly isolated themselves into groups and you’re barely aware of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
bob April 14, 2012 at 22:47

Perhaps it’s the political-cynic in me, but I would rather see Obama elected over Romney, if only to speed up the process. I mean, it’s not like Romney has the political will/means to change anything of significance.

Right. There’s no difference at all. Romney will reappoint:

Eric “my people” Holder – DOJ
Kathleen Sibelius – HHS
Lisa Jackson – EPA
Steven Chu – Department of Energy
and all the rest….. Romney will just keep them all on, because that’s what always happens when somebody form the opposing party wins. Riiiiight. You moron.

Romney will also appoint 2 more Liberal women to the Supreme Court. Hooray for wise Latinas.

Speed up the process? Read Orwell: The process is “a boot stamping on a human face – forever” – that’s what you are going to speed up. Good job!

Get your head out of your ass. You’re stinking up your ass.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 10
bob April 14, 2012 at 23:03

Zorro,

There’s a message for you at http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Bizzman662 April 14, 2012 at 23:31

Perfect comment above.

Once you have been through the Divorce Grinder……..”Chalimony” HELL…….VAWA used in a divorce proceeding………….

You come to the conclusion that the “SYSTEM” needs Dumb Ass Mangina Pussy White Knights to keep paying into Daddy Government to keep the ladies afloat.

I for one got SICK AND MOTHERFUCKING tired of EVERY SINGLE MOTHERFUCKING job I started…………a few months go by and HR gets the “Garnishment” order for that “Chalimony”.

So I started working for myself………..CONTRACTOR UNDER THE TABLE.

If your sick and tired of feeding the beast………..Work as a contractor and GHOST THE FUCK OUT.

For YEARS while married I paid my taxes so these bitches could set up a system to make me their bitch once I became “Divorced”……….Then after divorce I realized I paid my taxes so these bitches could destroy me and MILLIONS of other men in my same situation.

Fuck Em

Ghost the fuck out and pay those taxes ever quarter instead of every other week.

Chalimony orders making you look like a fool with HR?

Fuck Em

Ghost the fuck out and go “contractor” 1099.

How you like me know you hairy legged bitches?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Eric April 15, 2012 at 00:12

Avenger:
A lot of those things that you mentioned are pretty much what I based the predictions upon. I think things like gated communities, HOAs, &c. are the future walled-cities in embryo. So is the tendency among a lot of suburban areas to have ‘community policing’. It’s actually a lot more feasible today to make a self-contained city self-sustaining than during the earlier periods.

I’ve noticed the same trend regarding marriage that you mentioned (and a lot of foreign-born wives, contrary to feminist propaganda, are well-educated). The Middle Class is what is undergoing the major shift. Those raising the ‘feral kids’ are going down to the underclass, while the others will probably move economically upwards in the future.

The major change in the lower class will be a practical extinction of the so-called ‘working poor’. The new underclass is becoming increasingly violent, ignorant, and more dysfunctional.

The upper classes won’t change radically, except they will be more connected to the middle than now. The Middle Class, like always, will be the most productive, but the uppers will still maintain the threat of the increasingly barbaric lowers to keep the middle in their ‘place’. Still, I think the benefit of that will be that social conservatism will more or less collapse, as will economic liberalism. The welfare state will become impossible to maintain under such conditions, but the security state will increase. However, those resources are going to have to be concentrated in actual security; hence the decline of social converatism’s ability to enforce its puritanical whims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Kyo April 15, 2012 at 01:05

@Avenger

“You rarely see a member of the underclass on commuter trains, it’s all professionals and businessmen. So people have effectly isolated themselves into groups and you’re barely aware of it.”

I was going to argue the opposite: you see members of all classes on the train, at least in the NYC area where I grew up. (In fact, even in the 1990s you still saw homeless people on the subways. How about now?)

The gated communities, on the other hand, seem to be totally car-centric and car-dependent. Those people do all their getting-around in their gas-guzzling SUVs and faux-environmental hybrid cars.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
piercedhead April 15, 2012 at 02:13

What’s with all the pussy-footing?

We all know married men live under the Divorce-Sword-of-Damocles. Their worldly goods,minds, futures and children are no longer their own. They are desperate, and dangerous men. Of course they cannot be trusted. Can you really blame them?

We single, divorced and – yes -gay men are otherwise. We are what remains of what was once a proud heritage of half of humanity – we still possess our masculine value, with no obvious or immediate threat to our well-being for daring to be truthful.

Every politician who is married works for the enemy. He does not represent you. He is one of the many that built those jailhouses, wrote those laws that imprison you for not earning what some judge believes you should earn, excuses a woman for murdering you, and will have you imprisoned whenever your wife assaults you.

Remember this next time you vote.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 1
Avenger April 15, 2012 at 02:25

Kyo-I was going to argue the opposite: you see members of all classes on the train, at least in the NYC area where I grew up. (In fact, even in the 1990s you still saw homeless people on the subways. How about now?)

I was referring to the surburban commuter trains not people traveling from one part of the city to another. The trainsa for example that travel from Grand Central on the 3 lines that go to places like Greenwich, or Chappaqua etc
I don’t know how many homeless are around but there are certainly less of them esp. in Manhattan and in fact sent out social workers at noght a few years ago to find and count then and they could barely find any.

“The gated communities, on the other hand, seem to be totally car-centric and car-dependent

The entire US is. What’s your point? It would be impossible and entirely too expensive to have trains and buses all over. If you’re in NYC you don’t understand that outside it becomes country very quickly even in the suburbs and even the train station may be a few miles away so you need a car just to get there to take the train.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
Ode April 15, 2012 at 02:38

Eric

Meanwhile, the feminised women will keep breeding with their thuggish and dysfunctional bad-boys, and spawning what will end up as a permanent underclass. This underclass will be just about on par with outright savages (in some cities, they are already manifesting their presence). The downside of this paradigm shift is that the ‘security state’ is also—out of sheer necessity—going to become permanent too. I don’t think it’s at all unlikely that a future America will have walled cities like Mediaeval Europe had, where people rarely travel out of, except by air or train to other walled cities.

This is Brazil.
http://warrinergeography.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sao_paolo-rich_poor-7334901.jpg

Notice the unmistakable dividing line between the rich part and the poor part. Folks this isn’t photoshop, they actually build cities like this. I think this is a good thing. The well behaved productive class deserve to live in peace from the thuggish under lass. A fence is a good thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
freebird April 15, 2012 at 03:15

The repubs keep saying they’re going to cut SS and medicare:the old folks are going to vote Obama to keep those.

It’s been said “oh but they’re wealthy!
That is not going to stop them from voting against a pay cut,the rich are the stingiest folks I know.

But also-it’s not true:with the economy in shambles a huge amount of folks depend on SS and SS related benefits.

It’s a lock that Obama’s back in again.
The repubs are self sabotaging,it has to be on Purpose.

Not that your vote really counts anyway,there is this body known as the
Electoral college that decides,Ron Paul has had the popular vote all along,yet is practically invisible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5
Avenger April 15, 2012 at 04:38

But also-it’s not true:with the economy in shambles a huge amount of folks depend on SS and SS related benefits.

Yes, the Medicare benefits. 90% of medical expenditures are spent in the last year of a person’s life . The republicans atttaked Obama when he said that perhaps a lot of money should not be allocated for certain procedures for elderly persons and that they should just be given palliative treatment and they called this “death panels” but they completely twisted the whole thing. Replacing a knee or something in an otherwise healthy older patient is one thing but to spend a million dollars giving a heart or kidney transplant in a 90yo is ridiculous. After the age of 80 the human body is really deteriorating. The procedure will likely fail or the patient may spend a few months sick in hospital and then die so it’s just a waste of money and you used a heart that a young person would benefit from. Doctors almost never have these procedures for themselves if they’re old so that should tell you something.

“huge amount of folks depend on SS”

I doubt that’s true because even the max. benefits you can’t live on. As I said, SS was just meant as a supplement that has been increased quite a bit and some people who didn’t think of saving money or have pensions for retirement have come to depend on it. They really couldn’t survive on it unless they were also getting a subsidy for housing or lived with their kids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
Jimbo April 15, 2012 at 06:18

“What a mess”. That is a good description of the relationship between the sexes. I was thinking of all of the incredibly good commentary on this site and the fact that it can only come from men who’ve really had their eyes opened to what is going on. And I was thinking of how many books could be spawned by the writings at this site. And I was thinking that you could literally fill a library with books devoted to the perils and repercussions of feminism. What a mess? It is at the same time a describable mess and an indescribable mess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Senior Manchild April 15, 2012 at 08:06

“What a mess”

But out of chaos, arises opportunity

TFH says,

¨This is because while men vote for what benefits all people, women only vote for what benefits women.¨

I disagree, men have always voted for what benefited them until recently, it´s just that they were not as divided from the rest of society before; but will this not change as men are increasingly decoupled, and separated from women, even community to some extent. Men have been thrashing about not sure which way to go; but it should become ever more apparent,no?

Freebird says,

¨The repubs keep saying they’re going to cut SS and medicare:the old folks are going to vote Obama to keep those.

It’s been said “oh but they’re wealthy!
That is not going to stop them from voting against a pay cut,the rich are the stingiest folks I know.

But also-it’s not true:with the economy in shambles a huge amount of folks depend on SS and SS related benefits.

It’s a lock that Obama’s back in again.
The repubs are self sabotaging,it has to be on Purpose.¨

I think the most relevant fact is that now more than ever we are seeing a surge in people who identify with neither republicans or democrats; is it not possible that we are going to see an opening here?

http://reason.com/search?cx=000107342346889757597%3Ascm_knrboh8&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=independents&sa=Search

( the first page should do for interesting reading on the topic)

Eventually the young who are doing increasingly poorly(http://www.esquire.com/features/young-people-in-the-recession-0412) will start to exert themselves over the old; it will probably take until after the 2012 election for them to get their heads out of their occupy asses though.

Freebird further mentions,

¨Not that your vote really counts anyway,there is this body known as the Electoral college that decides,Ron Paul has had the popular vote all along,yet is practically invisible.¨

Well, I say again,

Let´s quit trying to save the republicans.

Republicans don´t seem to want to be fiscal libertarians, and of course Democrats don´t really want to be civil libertarians.

They both have evolved to be corporatists; they have their special interests to look out for. So, let´s quit trying to fit square pegs in round holes. Nobody is trying to woo me in this electoral contention and I don´t really expect libertarian to try to woo me as a middle-aged white dude, but they don´t really have to. Almost all of what they promote is largely in my self-interest.

Again, let´s hope that republicans jump on the team woman train; it will eventually alienate the constituency that has propped them up, and they depend on without concern for. Split the women, manginas, white-knights, and minorities who are not salvageable among the democrats and republicans and eventually( probably not 2012) some third party( probably libertarians)

can win with men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
freebird April 15, 2012 at 08:09

Actually I know quite a few folks that live on their SS check.You may not know what the maximum payout is?

It may be as high as 3500/mn,depending on how much you paid into the system.
What gets me is that a lot of times a married man works most of his life to build it up,then his widow collects it for the next 25 ears.

Also disabled and retired persons bastard children get a monthly payment almost equal to their own,
This money goes to the out of wedlock mother directly and is not regulated as to it’s use.(no college fund for the boy)

So you see that it’s mostly women collecting off the SS system,but men paying into it.

You’d be surprised on how little a person can live on if they have too.

Sure, if you’re female your standard of living goes up MORE with section 8 housing,foodstamps,WIC,paid for dental ect,those things are not given to men, regardless of disability.
Off topic is the free legal aid women get by crying violence.

Really,the entirety of govt is re-distribution to women.
Veterans certainly do not get this level of help.(unless also female)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Senior Manchild April 15, 2012 at 08:24

Really,the entirety of govt is re-distribution to women.
Veterans certainly do not get this level of help.(unless also female)

Well,

I would really hate to be a woman about now, with a sugar daddy who is driving on fumes( about broke).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous April 15, 2012 at 09:17

Uncle Elmer will love this
Why Asian Women Date White Men
http://jezebel.com/5901327/why-asian-women-date-white-men

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
MRA April 15, 2012 at 09:21

Uncle Elmer will love this
Why Asian Women Date White Men
http://jezebel.com/5901327/why-asian-women-date-white-men

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Hf April 15, 2012 at 09:36

Perhaps a new tactic could be taken. The current system seems irredeemable- So what if the mrm were to go ahead and vote for the dems? We know that the dems would increase govt spending, inevitably leading to social collapse. So in a sense, this would effectively be fueling the fire, ie speeding the collapse, creating an environ from which a new system could arise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
ahamkara April 15, 2012 at 10:13

That Jezebel article is funny. Most of the comments seem to be people trying to figure out some “star” and “pink” system that they have in place to police the comments. Why am I not surprised that a site like that would have some vague, indecipherable system for regulating people’s speech.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Abides April 15, 2012 at 11:36

The republicans will NEVER win the women’s vote.

The Republicans already have the middle class middle aged woman’s vote. They usually conservative, authoritarian, scared by anything, and pull down lots of money from the government via Republican-endorsed programmes:

What gets me is that a lot of times a married man works most of his life to build it up,then his widow collects it for the next 25 ears.

Exactly! Medicare part D was a gigantic expansion of Medicare, designed to be as costly as possible, that is as profitable as possible for pharma industry, and it was created by Republicans to please and get the votes of older women.

As everybody knows, women outlive men by many years, so they get a lot more out of social insurance. Admittedly they also work rather fewer years, and social insurance is partially proportional to contributions, but it is still as you say a big deal.

The Femocrats have the vote of young or poor single women, but the middle aged middle class ones vote their “values” for conservative pork barrel. An old style Republican like David Frum wrote:

http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/index4.html
«It’s fine to be unconcerned that the rich are getting richer, but blind to deny that middle-class wages have stagnated or worse over the past dozen years. In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused.
Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares.
This isn’t conservatism; it’s a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation.»

What he does not say is that it is high spending and a going-out-of-business sale largely for the women of the baby-boom generation.

The majority of the men of the baby-boom generation will die 5-15 years before the majority of the women of the baby-boom generation, and this will also give them a tremendous voting advantage to Republicans who will enact every possible authoritarian/repressive law and subsidy to pander to that constituency.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
MKP April 15, 2012 at 14:41

@ Abides:

Well observed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Senior Manchild April 15, 2012 at 15:15

From Hf,

¨Perhaps a new tactic could be taken. The current system seems irredeemable- So what if the mrm were to go ahead and vote for the dems? We know that the dems would increase govt spending, inevitably leading to social collapse. So in a sense, this would effectively be fueling the fire, ie speeding the collapse, creating an environ from which a new system could arise.¨

In response, an essay brought to our attention by Captain Capitalism:

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2012/04/confidence-part-iv.html

¨Perhaps it’s better to keep the “faster” version in charge and let us rush into the void headlong, while there are still at least a few free-thinkers around to give us even a semblance of a chance of getting back on the right track after the dust settles.¨

To which the essay follows up with,

¨All the political initiative now is with the forces of Amsoc. Where the so-called conservatives have fought generations of piece-meal rear-guard action against the integral resolution of socialism to corrode its worst enemy — the practical and living ideal of freedom: America — out of existence, and as they have done so as effects of disintegrated philosophy, the socialists are assuming the commanding heights in full political battle gear.

It is important to understand that this can only and inevitably mean physical battle gear, right in front of your eyes, right here in America. The spirit of this place that was not born of the slave’s obeisance will require this government to bare its fangs. I still believe that. The ways in which and the singular souls from which Americans select their values are not yet so beaten to any alien molds so well that they will peaceably stand for the conformations that this government will eventually require and demand — not “ask”.¨

¨Regardless, there’s Tough History Coming¨

To understand better the above quotes, refer to the essay at the link.

There is the possibility that much of the¨Tough future¨ can be avoided if we can see beyond our present bipartisan dystopia and conduct the revolution through the ballot box and not in the street.

Just quit trying to save republicans. At least make them try harder to court you. If they want to help split the womans vote, they could be our useful idiots.

From above( Abides),

The Republicans already have the middle class middle aged woman’s vote. They usually conservative, authoritarian, scared by anything, and pull down lots of money from the government via Republican-endorsed programs…The Femocrats have the vote of young or poor single women, but the middle aged middle class ones vote their “values” for conservative pork barrel. An old style Republican like David Frum wrote:

http://nymag.com/news/politics/conservatives-david-frum-2011-11/index4.html
«It’s fine to be unconcerned that the rich are getting richer, but blind to deny that middle-class wages have stagnated or worse over the past dozen years. In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused.
Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares.
This isn’t conservatism; it’s a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation.»

What he does not say is that it is high spending and a going-out-of-business sale largely for the women of the baby-boom generation.

The majority of the men of the baby-boom generation will die 5-15 years before the majority of the women of the baby-boom generation, and this will also give them a tremendous voting advantage to Republicans who will enact every possible authoritarian/repressive law and subsidy to pander to that constituency.¨

All these unfunded entitlements are a mirage. We will walk towards this supposed future only to find that there is no water to be found. The society will never be able to pay for these entitlements; some boomers will luck out and die before we hit the wall, but the wall is coming.

Most of the wealth of these older boomer women is in real estate, so even the ones who continue on with SS and other entitlements are presently starting to pay with the loss of affluence now. This tries to paint a pretty picture, but not really:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/baby-boomers-singles-retirement/story?id=15851556#.T4T2N9WUWVp

There are solutions to the problems; bankruptcy is liberating.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The Boogens April 15, 2012 at 16:27

There is nothing wrong with our society that can’t be solved by mandating a return to a 50 hour work week.

But I mean 50 hours of actual work, not net surfing on the boss’s dime, etc.

We live in a lazy society. David Brooks is some kind of a push me pull you fabrication of the NYTimes, he’s certainly not a conservative.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6
Eric April 15, 2012 at 20:36

Ode,
‘I think this a good thing.’

Basically, I agree; except I think it’s making more a virtue of necessity. I remember back in the ’90s, some of the Clintonistas were experimenting with what they called ‘horizontal integration’, trying to build low-income housing in better neighborhoods. That met with so much local resistance it was never implemented on a wide scale, or else people moved out these neighborhoods and into gated communities.

Schemes like these seriously makes one wonder if liberalism doesn’t have an intrinsically suicidal component to it. Most ‘progressive’ men I’ve ever talked to seem to hate everything about themselves: white, straight, male, economically well-off, and often whatever religion they were brought up in. It would be an interesting research topic LOL.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jay April 16, 2012 at 07:05

Brooks scores no points for stating the obvious.

The republicans, since Obama’s election, have done everything to alienate their vote. They will score their share of red-state chick votes but the gyno-obsessed governors will send women to the polls for the Dem slot. . .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Just Some Canadian April 16, 2012 at 08:04

>Not wanting to pay a Georgetown law student’s birth control doesn’t count.

Actually, it does. You may not want to hear it, but if you were a woman voting with her self interest in mind, it would.

Birth control and abortion are issues where siding against freedom of choice always ends up in lower votes of women. The dunderheaded stance on reproductive issues in the last few months of the GOP was a self-inflicted wound that any first semester political science major could have predicted.

Oh, YOU don’t think it’s valid. Good for you. Women do. That’s politics and women’ll vote accordingly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
JFP April 16, 2012 at 15:48

Indeed JSC. That is why letting women vote is clearly a major reason for the downfall of the west. A majority only give a shit about themselves and despite the rhetoric, aren’t thinking far ahead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
I, Enemy Combatant April 17, 2012 at 02:38

for the downfall of the west. A majority only give a shit about themselves and despite the rhetoric, aren’t thinking far ahead.

How, on average, are men better?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Bskillet81 April 18, 2012 at 14:52

Republicans have never won High School educated single moms, and they have still managed to win elections at the Presidential level.

I have no intention of voting for OBomney. Sick of voting for the lesser of two idiots.

But the bottom line is, someone should point out to these waitress moms–many of whom are already on government support–that unless we gut spending NOW, no one gets any support from government.

But that would require them to think rationally.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bskillet81 April 18, 2012 at 14:56

“The dunderheaded stance on reproductive issues in the last few months of the GOP”

Actually, nothing happened in the GOP that ever changed. GOP was always pro-life, and never was for banning contraception. What happened was the media decided to tell everyone, “Republicans want to outlaw contraception,” with no evidence whatsoever that this was the case. Republicans have no plans to ban contraception, but the media created the myth that they do.

One of the problems with a democracy in a media-obsessed culture is that it quickly devolves into dictatorship by media elites.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: