LawTalkers - A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

Compared to U.S. workers overall, hotel workers are younger, have less formal education, are more likely to be women, are more likely to be immigrants, and are less likely to be white. In 2000, about 21.8 percent of hotel workers were under age 25, 24 percent did not have a high school diploma, 57.9 percent were women, 28.4 percent were immigrants and 45.6 percent were non-white.

Ah.

Guys, we've been reading this all wrong. Club is offended not for the GOP, nor for minorities, but instead on behalf of white hotel workers.

Shape Shifter

02-17-2005 01:59 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
You fail. From the cite you posted:

Compared to U.S. workers overall, hotel workers are younger, have less formal education, are more likely to be women, are more likely to be immigrants, and are less likely to be white. In 2000, about 21.8 percent of hotel workers were under age 25, 24 percent did not have a high school diploma, 57.9 percent were women, 28.4 percent were immigrants and 45.6 percent were non-white.

Uh, did you miss the part about whites being 72.5% of the workforce?

Hank Chinaski

02-17-2005 02:00 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
Doesn't the accuracy of the remark sort of prove that the GOPers are helping minorities less?

Huh? You're saying it wouldn't have been true 4 years ago?

bilmore

02-17-2005 02:00 PM

Brit Hume, deceptive hack

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hume inserted the words "government funding" there to imply that Roosevelt was talking about something like what Bush wants to do. He wasn't.

Are you reading Hume to be claiming that FDR wanted qualified accounts to completely supplant SS? If you are, then I would agree with you that Hume would be wrong.

But I don't read him that way. What I took from his comments was that FDR liked the idea of the additional, investment-driven private accounts being a part of the mix. FDR thought they should eventually be an important component to the whole scheme. I took that as a measure of FDR's prescience - he contemplated qualified accounts way back then.

Not Bob

02-17-2005 02:01 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It was an insult to Republicans, not people of color. You should be sputtering in outrage on behalf of yourself, not on behalf of me and my service industry working relatives.

It's also an argument that has been used effectively against so-called limousene liberals ("the only Latino that Senator Blowhard knows mows his lawn").

FWIW, I could be wrong, but I don't recall that Jim Baker's famous comment ("they don't vote for us, so fuck 'em") about U.S. Jewish groups who considered George H.W. Bush's Mideast policies as too pro-Palestinean was widely regarded as being anti-Semitic.

Tyrone Slothrop

02-17-2005 02:01 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Uh, did you miss the part about whites being 72.5% of the workforce?

Club seems to be confused about the difference between "less likely" to be white and "unlikely" to be white.

Replaced_Texan

02-17-2005 02:01 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Doesn't it sort of prove that the Dems aren't really helping minorities that this might be true 40 years into the Great Society?

No, because the statement only had to do with people of color at GOP events. It was not a sweeping statement on society in general or racial equality or anything like that. It was a targeted insult to Republicans about the lack of diversity in the GOP tent. The stupid "Dean's saying that blacks can only get menial staff jobs" analogy falls apart the second you look at the rest of the statement. He's fucking talking to the Black Caucus. He knows and they know that people of color are in all segments of society. Except the GOP.

And I have a really pretty feather duster that I'd be happy to pose with if that makes you happy.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

02-17-2005 02:01 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
You fail. From the cite you posted:

Compared to U.S. workers overall, hotel workers are younger, have less formal education, are more likely to be women, are more likely to be immigrants, and are less likely to be white. In 2000, about 21.8 percent of hotel workers were under age 25, 24 percent did not have a high school diploma, 57.9 percent were women, 28.4 percent were immigrants and 45.6 percent were non-white.

I take it back. Burger was being easy on you.

Hank Chinaski

02-17-2005 02:01 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Uh, did you miss the part about whites being 72.5% of the workforce?

what's the slope?

taxwonk

02-17-2005 02:02 PM

Brit Hume, deceptive hack

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I see you found all of those consumption-tax models that include food, rent, and meds.

(Where were they? I missed them all.)

No, but I also didn't find the ones that exclude transportation, clothing, over-the counter health products, school supplies, and child care. Do you happen to know where they went?

Furthermore, I will just flat out say that I think the idea of taxing consumption rather than income is, by design, a means of further widening the gap between the members of our society who generate more of their income through investment and property ownership and those who work for an hourly wage. I oppose that concept on principle, notwithstanding it would benefit me financially.

Shape Shifter

02-17-2005 02:04 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
what's the slope?

Racist fuck.

Secret_Agent_Man

02-17-2005 02:04 PM

Brit Hume, deceptive hack

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Did you even bother to read what Hume said? From the top again, Hume said:

In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plans should include, "Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age," adding that government funding, "ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Hume inserted the words "government funding" there to imply that Roosevelt was talking about something like what Bush wants to do. He wasn't.

Ty --

Here is your original quote of Roosevelt's speech, taken from Drum:

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles:

"First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions.

"Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations.

"Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age.

"It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Now, Hume may have been spinning a bit, but that last paragraph (in bold) sure looks as though it says that the old-age pension plan (and by extension government funding for it) ought to be replaced by self-supporting annuity plans -- exactly as Hume said.

[I'm not sure this matters to a reform argument -- except insofar as it urges us to avoid allowing SS to reach a deficit, as the government doesn't actually fund SS now.]

Also, Bilmore is correct that Drum did say, with no visible support or relevance except to grind his own political axe, that FDR didn't really care about his third point anyway -- voluntary contribution annuities.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid every time they bring the pitcher around.

S_A_M

Gattigap

02-17-2005 02:05 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Huh? You're saying it wouldn't have been true 4 years ago?

No, I'm saying that Dean's statement doesn't "sort of prove" anything of the sort, for the reasons RT mentioned above.

I tried to be funny by flipping the question, but as you well know, humor occasionally misses. My bad.

sgtclub

02-17-2005 02:06 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Answering you a little more seriously, your question isn't reflecting the true nature of his statement. You have to look at the entire statement as a whole. He's not saying that minorities only serve in the capacity of "staff." He's saying that the only minorities that generally are let into GOP events like the one he was speaking at are the people that they pay to be there in a service capacity. (CF. Wonkette's challenge during the GOP convention to try and find ANY person of color attending the events. I think the Daily Show had a similar montage of people of color cleaning up after the RNC. It's an old joke.)

It was an insult to Republicans, not people of color. You should be sputtering in outrage on behalf of yourself, not on behalf of me and my service industry working relatives.

ETclarify

I understand what he was trying to say, but in order to make his point I think he used a stereotype based on race which is offensive (at least to me). You all seem to want to let this slide because (1) you think the stereotype (that staff workers ARE predeominately minorities) is true (which it's not), and (2) he was really slamming the GOP not minorities. That just doesn't work for me. What's the difference between what he said and a statement like "All Jews are bankers" or "all Irish are drunks" . . . wait, strike that last one, it may be true.

ltl/fb

02-17-2005 02:09 PM

Dean's Comments

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand what he was trying to say, but in order to make his point I think he used a stereotype based on race which is offensive (at least to me). You all seem to want to let this slide because (1) you think the stereotype (that staff workers ARE predeominately minorities) is true (which it's not), and (2) he was really slamming the GOP not minorities. That just doesn't work for me. What's the difference between what he said and a statement like "All Jews are bankers" or "all Irish are drunks" . . . wait, strike that last one, it may be true.

No, I think he was saying that if you hold a function at a hotel, chances are that there will be a minority person acting in a staff capacity. At an R function, thy will be the only minorities in the room -- because while hotel staffs generally include some minorities, the R party does not.*

*of course, it does, but less than 42%, and it was rhetoric anyway.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:16 PM.

Page 213 of 334

213

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page