This indictment of the Democratic party is not intended to be an exoneration of the Republican party. Republicans have their own stench about them. Between the two of them you have to choose between being a slave or being cast out into the wilderness.

Welfare slavery is a plague that has been the scourge of the poor. Through the welfare programs the government has subsidized cheap cheap CHEAP labor for the wealthy for many years. In rural areas people on welfare are fully expected to work for the wealth at dirt cheap, under-the-table pay as maids, gardeners, babysitters and even business employees. In the city it is food stamps, food banks and charity programs which subsidize the cheap labor for the wealthy. Walmart and McDonald's, to name a few, would be out of business for lack of employees if their work force actually had to survive on their pay. Luckily those employees are kept alive by government and private charities so they may continue to work for next to nothing for wealthy people and huge, rich corporations. This is called “helping the poor”.

Welfare slavery grew up just in time to replace Jim Crow and was ruled solidly under the Democrats, just as Jim Crow functioned under the iron rule of the Democrats. There are still places in the south where Democrat rule is so strong that the Democratic primary is the entire election because the Democratic candidates run unopposed. For the most part they are the most destitute and desperate of rural areas.

Those who believe the Democrats are for helping “the little man” had better go back and study your history because they're baiting you up again. Want some candy, little man?

auntieracist

It might be called dependence, but that's not slavery.

Welfare subsidizes labor for the rich to some extent, but if the poor didn't get any welfare at all, they would be more exploited, and their poverty would be more like enslavement. To say otherwise contradicts basic math and common sense.

Welfare gives the poor something to survive on, which then may discourage them from accepting very low wages. That then causes wages to rise, and businesses will need to pay more to attract workers.

Some people say that welfare prevents people from suffering, so it relieves the system from riots and widespread unrest. There might be some truth to that, but it sounds too facile. Someone needs to crunch the numbers and see if there's a relationship.

Some would say that having people be outside of the labor market is, in itself, bad, because it causes people to be unable to hold a job. There's truth in that - but the logical conclusion from that would be that the market should subsidize the poor to keep them in the labor market. (And it does, through the EITC.)

u said: "There are still places in the south where Democrat rule is so strong that the Democratic primary is the entire election because the Democratic candidates run unopposed."

It's NO BIG DEAL.

That's called a noncompetitive election, and something like 80% of districts are noncompetitive.

Maybe it's higher. And obviously, it applies to Republican districts as much as Democrat districts. Can you imagine Democrats doing well in Texas... or some parts of San Diego or Fresno for that matter.

Likewise, could you imagine a Republican victory in South Central LA? LOL. The closest thing you'll get is someone like Joe Buscaino, who used to be a Republican, but switched over to Democrat to run for City Council in an area that included Watts. There have been some other switchers in LA, too, like Debra Bowen and Wendy Greuel. They at least had the taste to do it two decades ago.

Bernard Parks used to be in the fascist party, but switched to Democrat is proudly proclaims he's one. Though everyone knows his party is "Bernard Parks".

Why are so many areas non-competitive? Some say it's gerrymandering, but the real reason is simple: many districts comprise similar sub-areas, and those areas tend to be economically, and sometimes racially, homogeneous. People tend to vote by party, and decline-to-state tend to vote by economics or identity politics, so you end up with a pretty predictable voting pattern.

Consequently, the local politicians position themselves in relation to these realities. They may switch parties. More likely, they move. They may change their politics, or have no ideology and just create coalitions that can win. That tends to amplify the advantages to the majority party.

(Look at how Kevin James influenced the LA election - he was a game changer, and did it by giving his votes to Garcetti. He's done more for Republicans in LA than anyone in a long time - maybe since Riordan. If he just walked away and didn't collaborate with Democrats, he would have been an idiot and his supporters would have castigated him.)

Seems like I cannot stop myself.

The South turned Republican a long time ago. There are some Dem districts, but they are overrun. Just look at the map. Black votes in the South are gerrymandered, still, and it's going to get worse.

Whites in the South do anything and everything to suppress and negate Black votes.

It's part of the bag of tricks that allows for bullshit like the Marissa Alexander verdict to happen, and for stand your ground laws to get passed.

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about you finding the wrong answers."

http://guymcpherson.com/

That takes it.

2 day work week. 3 days mandatory rest (limited transportation). 2 days free time.