Michele Bachmann: Obama's Wealth 'Really The Issue' In 2012 Election

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by nightstalker46
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.


Well, she sure got that part right didn't she.

I didn't think it was the validity that was questionable here? If that is what you see wrong with that statement perhaps it should be fact checked.

So I guess a lot of republicans really link that interesting. I had thought they outgrew there fondness of such things. Thanks for enlighten me.

So you don't think a 70+% illegitimacy rate in the black community is a problem??

www.discoverthenetworks.org...

n mid-1960s America, the nation's out-of-wedlock birth rate (which stood at 7.7 percent at the time) began a rapid and relentless climb across all demographic lines, a climb that would continue unabated until 1994, when the Welfare Reform Act put the brakes on that trend. Today the overall American illegitimacy rate is about 33 percent (26 percent for whites). For blacks, it hovers at near 70 percent—approximately three times the level of black illegitimacy that existed when the War on Poverty began in 1964.

illegitimacy is an important issue because it has a great influence on all statistical indicators of a population group’s progress or decline. In 1987, for the first time in the history of any American racial or ethnic group, the birth rate for unmarried black women surpassed that for married black women, and that trend continued uninterrupted until the passage of welfare reform. The black out-of-wedlock birth rates in some inner cities now exceed 80 percent, and most of those mothers are teens. Because unmarried teenage mothers—whatever their race—typically have no steady employment, nearly 80 percent of them apply for welfare benefits within five years after giving birth to their first child. No group can withstand such a wholesale collapse of its family structure without experiencing devastating social consequences.

Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of our society’s economic ladder. Unwed mothers, regardless of their race, are four times more likely to live in poverty than the average American. Female-headed black families earn only 36 percent as much as two-parent black families, and female-headed white families earn just 46 percent as much as two-parent white families. Not only do unmarried mothers tend to earn relatively little, but their households are obviously limited to a single breadwinner—thus further widening the income gap between one-parent and two-parent families. Fully 85 percent of all black children in poverty live in single-parent, mother-child homes.

As to the full statement you refer to; I assume the remark about the founding fathers i.

edsitement.neh.gov...

Introduction

The question of whether the American founders were in favor of or against slavery is not a new one. On the one hand, Americans failed to do away with slavery, as several insuperable obstacles seemed to make immediate abolition impossible – not the least of which was the threat from certain Southern states to refrain from joining the Union if slavery was not sufficiently protected in the proposed Constitution. On the other hand, most of the prominent American founders understood that slavery was inconsistent with the principle that “all men are created equal.” As John Jay wrote in 1786, “To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused."

The result was that plans for gradual rather than immediate abolition were adopted, with many states passing laws for the gradual emancipation or individual manumission of slaves. The founders hoped that slavery would ultimately die a natural death, or that some solution would present itself to future generations of Americans. Yet this hope was mixed with fear that if slavery was not extirpated peacefully, it might culminate in either a bloody slave rebellion or the violent dissolution of the Union.

This lesson will focus on the views of the founders as expressed in primary documents from their own time and in their own words. Students will see that many of the major founders opposed slavery as contrary to the principles of the American Revolution. Students will also gain a better understanding of the views of many founders, even those who owned slaves – including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson – who looked forward to a time when slavery would no longer mar the American Republic.

Bachmann may have confused John Q. Adams for John Adams, a founding father who was against slavery. A misquote that any of us could make at an impromptu discussion. I can't fault her for that. Maybe you can. The jist of her comment is entirely correct. It appears this argument is over. You lose!

en.wikipedia.org...

Adams never bought a slave and declined on principle to employ slave labor.[58] Abigail Adams opposed slavery and employed free blacks in preference to her father's two domestic slaves. John Adams spoke out in 1777 against a bill to emancipate slaves in Massachusetts, saying that the issue was presently too divisive, and so the legislation should "sleep for a time."[59] He also was against use of black soldiers in the Revolution, due to opposition from southerners.[59] Adams generally tried to keep the issue out of national politics, because of the anticipated southern response.[59][60] Though it is difficult to pinpoint the exact date on which slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, a common view is that it was abolished no later than 1780, when it was forbidden by implication in the Declaration of Rights that John Adams wrote into the Massachusetts Constitution.[61]

Originally posted by nightstalker46
reply to post by Annee

 

Accualy I think that was Nancy Pelosi.

No - it was a man.

Sux when hearing stuff on radio when you are driving. You can't write anything down.

they both went to harvard and became successful

but michelle honey the issues are jobs and taxes

like every year

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


OutKast, S&F for another fine OP!

Michele Bachmann is dumber than a box of dirt, but then that makes her a perfect fit for the constituency she heads, namely the TP/GOP. You know, the same group of people who think that a woman's body will automatically release spermicide in the event she is the victim of a "forcible rape."

You know what Ron White said; "You can't fix stupid." However, we can vote them out of office. I know there has to be some sensible voters in Minnesota because they also elected Al Franken and IMO, he's sharp as a tack.

I think her point is that it is a stupid point to make in the first place.

Both men are far more wealthy than most all other Americans, so why even bring it up in the first place?

It is simply a distraction used to keep people from focusing on important election issues.

Is her point really that difficult for you to infer?

reply to post by nightstalker46


I apose anything that supports slavery and anyone that trys to justify it. BTW in comparison have the rates changed for white familys as well? It would be interesting to see those figures to put things in context.

Originally posted by nightstalker46


So you don't think a 70+% illegitimacy rate in the black community is a problem??

You think they would be better off as slaves?
That is what she said.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


This might be giving her too much credit, but perhaps she was saying why is this focused on Romney? Obama has a lot of wealth too, so if that makes you unable to relate, then you are saying Obama can't relate. Which clearly they are not, so she is calling them out on their obvious bias. Although I am unsure she is that smart.

Originally posted by nightstalker46
If you are a Newfoundlander, why the hell do you feel it necessary to join this conversation anyway. It's our business, not yours.

So, you're saying that only Americans are permitted to have an opinion on this moron? That's the absolute height of arrogance. Get over yourself. Last I checked, ATS didn't have an 'Americans Only' policy.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I...just...don't know what to say.

I do. But the language might get me banned.

Exactly how stupid does she think Americans are???

Apparently ... VERY.

This yutz just recently was awarded dual citizenship with Switzerland.
It would be REALLY nice if she'd go visit her new homeland for a long, long visit.

Now if she was trying to say that he is in cahoots with the global elite .. I'd say she's right.
But, from what I've read here, I'd say she was waaaay off that mark. WAY WAY off.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Occam, you must be a very nice person. That same thought crossed my mind, too.

I will say this much. When one is born into wealth, it is much harder to understand what it means to not be in that socio-economic group. If one is born into wealth, then temporarily serving tuna on an ironing board is a quaint playfullness, rather than comprehending the reality of those that will always serve a meal thusly.

If one is born into a lower socio-economic level, then obtains great wealth, there will always be the reality of those memories of your former socio-economic status.

Originally posted by desert

If one is born into a lower socio-economic level, then obtains great wealth, there will always be the reality of those memories of your former socio-economic status.

Not necessarily. I was born into lower socio-economic level (trailer park in Compton). When I was a teen my mother married a millionaire. Having money to spend was like self-entitlement.

WARNING: "That which is not earned has no value".

Only when that wealth was lost and I was back in a socio-economic level did I appreciate it - - the opportunity I had. Most everyone is taught to get a job. We are not taught how to use money - - how to hold on to it - - how to make it work for you. Money is opportunity that most people waste.

But the Obama's IMO seem to have their feet planted firmly in the ground. You don't come from nothing to wealth - - unless you worked hard to earn it. The harder you worked - - the more value it has.

There are a ton of stupid posts in this thread trying to defend this woman by pretending to interpret her words to mean something other than what she actually said.
She says Obama's money is more important than Romney's money.

Ok, why?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by desert

If one is born into a lower socio-economic level, then obtains great wealth, there will always be the reality of those memories of your former socio-economic status.

Not necessarily. I was born into lower socio-economic level (trailer park in Compton). When I was a teen my mother married a millionaire. Having money to spend was like self-entitlement.

WARNING: "That which is not earned has no value".

Kinda seems like you missed the point. Someone that is born into a lower socio-economic level who then obtains great wealth is not what you did. You did not obtain any great wealth. You were still a kid. Your mom married a guy that had great wealth. That was not something you earned or achieved or worked for.

BIG DIFFERENCE between getting to a point of prosperity from poverty and being a spoiled rich kid for a few years.

reply to post by Annee


Ah, yes, thanks for sharing. Gaining wealth can sometimes make people think and act as you described, believing it will never go away.

Sometimes, a wealthy person has a fear that their wealth will go away. This can lead to interesting behavior, such as washing plastic toothpicks to reuse at the next party.

Great observations about people and money.

What I don't like hearing lately is that "success" is equated with "wealth". Where I live, success for some is being able to shop at WalMart rather than ONLY at a swapmeet. To me, success in Life is not always about an abundance of money.

What I object to is when wealth has been gained at the expense of others, prompted by greed. That Biblical quote seems to fit, What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?

Originally posted by Endorra

Kinda seems like you missed the point. Someone that is born into a lower socio-economic level who then obtains great wealth is not what you did. You did not obtain any great wealth. You were still a kid. Your mom married a guy that had great wealth. That was not something you earned or achieved or worked for.

BIG DIFFERENCE between getting to a point of prosperity from poverty and being a spoiled rich kid for a few years.

How did I miss the point?

"That which is not earned has no value"

Originally posted by desert

Sometimes, a wealthy person has a fear that their wealth will go away. This can lead to interesting behavior, such as washing plastic toothpicks to reuse at the next party.

That's funny. One real incident. My step-father was wearing a black suit (from Sears) and brown shoes. My mom said - - "you can't wear brown shoes with a black suit". He went out in the garage - - got a can of black spray paint - - and painted his brown shoes black.

SIDE NOTE: I wanted very much to make valuable use of the opportunity I was fortunate to have. Unfortunately - - I was very very very ill at the time. Basically I was "sea sick" for 6 years because of fluid build up in my ears/equilibrium. Due to an odd physical dis-function not fully pin-pointed until I was 50. You know - - one of those Medical Incredible stories.

So - - anyone saying I was just a Lazy Opportunist kid - - is 100% incorrect.

reply to post by Golf66


and...

Originally posted by nightstalker46
You make some good points. My question is where did Obama make his money, considering his questionable work history.

He's made most of his money through the sales of his two books.

LA Times

A brief mention of a few financial details...including the fact that his home in Chicago is still mortgaged and he invests heavily in treasury bonds and has two college savings accounts set up for his daughters.

A Forbes article says his book sales peaked in 2009, earning close to $6 million. Evidently, he's written a third book, from what this article says, also...proceeds going to charity, however.

This is what Forbes says:

One of the couple’s most valuable assets is their 6,200-square-foot, 6-bathroom, 3-fireplace home in Hyde Park, on the South Side of Chicago. The property was recently listed in public documents with a value at $1.65 million, same as what the Obamas paid for it back in 2005. The financial disclosure released Tuesday reveals a mortgage against the house of between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

All in all, that brings the Obamas up to nearly $6 million, not too bad for a pair of Harvard Law School grads who skipped the corporate track to become a community activist and a hospital communications director.

Here’s an approximated summary of where the Obamas hold their wealth:

Cash: $660,000
Mutual funds/ETFs: $625,000
Pension: $90,000
Treasuries: $3.4 million
Real estate: $900,000
TOTAL: $5.7 million

Forbes also reports on Mitt Romney's 'worth' and the page is here. I'm not going to quote any because it is a much more involved article...2 pages, even. It does say, however, that the Romneys are worth about $230 million. He's put $100 million away in a trust for his sons, that is not included in that figure.



Barack and Michelle Obama probably equate to GHETTO from the perspective of Mitt and Ann Romney.



I bet that if Mitt were elected to the Oval Office, that he'd probably forget to pick up his piddly little $400,000 a year presidential salary paycheck.

In 2004, the Obamas' combined income was just half of what Barack makes as President.

You can see Obama tax returns here. Romney only submitted one tax return, which can be viewed here.

A site called CelebrityHousePictures.com has an aerial view of the Romney home in Massachusetts...and the one in New Hampshire....the one in Utah....and the one in California.

You can do a google image search for "Romney home" and get a gander at what these houses look like from ground level.

The Obama's just have the one house, aerial view here. Here is a street view of the same.

Both Obama and Romney are unfathomably rich in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans. Obama's opportunities to amass an even more incredible fortune after he leaves the presidency will be without limit. This is a ridiculous discussion. Both men are wealthy.

reply to post by Annee


That was a funny story about the shoes. The plastic toothpick story was true, too, BTW,

Wow, that ear problem sounded horrible. Did you ever get relief from it or just a diagnosis of its cause? My sister suffered her entire life from some condition: doctors know what it isn't, but they can't put a name on what she has. I'm always amazed though what modern medicine can now do for conditions that years ago couldn't be given a helpful diagnosis. Back when I was growing up, it was take this pink liquid, and if that doesn't work and you don't die, then you'll just have to learn to live with it. ...but, I digress ....really, really digress...

Originally posted by queenannie38

Barack and Michelle Obama probably equate to GHETTO from the perspective of Mitt and Ann Romney.

There is a lot of truth in that statement. (I have no idea if the Romneys personally believe that, but it is true in general, from the perspective of differing levels of wealth.) And Romney's wealth could be looked upon as "new" wealth, versus "old" wealth.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Both Obama and Romney are unfathomably rich in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans. Obama's opportunities to amass an even more incredible fortune after he leaves the presidency will be without limit. This is a ridiculous discussion. Both men are wealthy.

However, if Romney's wealth and BACKGROUND prevent him from understanding what the vast majority deal with on a daily basis, especially in these times, then he will appear unable or unwillingly to govern with the vast majority interest in mind. Mr. Romney seems either to not understand or to try too hard to be the common man.