The Expansion of Black American Misery under Barack Obama's Watch

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
13 years ago, I worked with this guy who I loved debating with. We never agreed on politics, but we always kept our conversations polite and respectful. He was a black man who grew up poor. I am a white woman who also grew up poor.

He told me he was a communist and that most blacks he knew were also secretly communists. (Keep in mind this was before 911). He told me the reason he supported communism was that many of his people will never get ahead on their own. They are generations deep in uneducation, poverty and crime, and are frequently subject to racial profiling. He believed they would never overcome this situation, and if we lived in a communist society, they would naturally be brought up while others are brought down. That only then would we all truly be equal.

I was young and still aspired to follow my dream of starting my business. With no college education, no money and no parent help to rely on, I still believed that we had the freedom to chase the American dream, no matter where we start from. He disagreed. He gave up and had no hope. I asked him if he thought it was fair to punish those who worked their way to success and came from nothing, so that those who don't try or don't believe in themselves can get a handout. He said he didn't care about fair, he only cared about himself and his family. I was shocked. He thought it was unfair for some to succeed when others don't.

3 years later I quit my job and started my business.

I never forgot that conversation and I've always felt bad for him because he could never open his eyes to see his own potential. He was a very smart guy, he could have done more with his life if he believed in himself. But he was raised to always feel like an outsider who would never get a fair chance in life because of his skin color.

I don't believe many of the blacks will ever see what is really happening to them as a whole in this country. They can't see past their own lives, their own families, and their own hoods. They turn against their own who are successful, or their own who could see though Obama and spoke out. They call them uncle toms. They treat them like traitors. If you were black and against Obama when he first got elected, you were afraid to speak out because of your own race turning against you.

The problem is that most blacks are racist to themselves. If you were black and didn't vote for Obama, look at how others treated you. Do we call whites who vote for Obama rasist? Of course not. We didn't vote by skin color. They obviously did. But they still think we are the racists. Racial tension has only increased since Obama. It's shocking. I always thought the day we elected our first black president, we would finally show blacks that they are equal and can achieve, and that the only ones holding them back are themselves. Instead, things have only gotten worse. But somehow, they still find a way to blame whites for all that is wrong, even with a black President in office. It's a shame they never listened to bill Cosby. They celebrate MLK but don't seem to listen to or truly undrestand his message.




posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
When a gov't deficit spends, it is a DIRECT TAX on the middle and lower class. That is why the chart showing the top 1% getting richer over the last 30+ years, is actually true. The Rich benifit from deficit spending the most and which President has deficit spent 6 TRILLION in the last 4 years.....Obama! Carter started some of it, then Reagan used Deficit spending to help get us going in the early 80's. Problem is, we never really took the foot off the gas peddle and even the "Clinton balanced budget years" were filled with math and economic tricks to make it look like everything was perfect. Politicians love to tell half the truth so they can smile and wave and have everybody love them (That was probably an insult to all the people that only tell half the truth). Then Bush deficit spent to go to war so we could be the world's policeman...that worked out great didn't it.

Black folks are more proportionetly in the lower to middle class, so statistically they are being hurt more by the deficit spending.

Soon, you won't have to worry about which group, Black/White/Latino, are going to be hurt, because it is going to be ALL of us. This entire economic game is coming to a close soon as Math sucks sometimes. Has anybody noticed that each new President has to keep deficit spending more and more to keep up the same game????

The people in Wash. DC really don't care what color we are, they only care about living the good life off the rest of our dimes.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Maybe if "black folk" would stop dwelling and blaming everything in their past they could start focusing on their future.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
isn't lumping a group of people together and making generalizations to suit a political agenda the problem, not the solution ?



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


It's the Progressive agenda to grow govt more and more and create dependence. When those in Hollywood make huge huge bucks in entertainment, they go on to support big govt Progressive ideologies, even though they themselves made it big in the private sector.


The progressive agenda is very good at organizing on a very large scale. Unions and subsistence living thrive in big cities and it is the big cities that are just about the only blue in each state. It is a great model for them to focus where the population is dense and the vast majority are attracted to their simple, but unattainable promises. Unions on the other hand are the strong arm of the movement using very aggressive tactics to force people to unify towards their progressive agendas.

We see big cities dying as they boast high pay scales, but also the highest cost of living AND the highest taxes. Companies leave, others downsize and the local community sees skyrocket unemployment percentages.

For black men the difference between 2007 and 2010 for unemployment in a few cities are;

Las Vegas....2007 6.2.......2010 21.4
Detroit..........2007 14.9.....2010 24.7
Charlotte......2007 8..........2010 19.5
LA................2007 8.3.......2010 19.5

For young black adults it is 40 plus percent unemployed, and this doesn't even account for what kind of pay does a black person make if they do have a job.


From 2005 to 2009, the average black household's wealth fell by more than half, to $5,677, while white household wealth fell 16 percent to $113,149, according to the Pew Research Center. In 2009, 24 percent of black households had no major assets other than a vehicle, compared with 6 percent of their white counterparts.


Wealth

The main problem is they been lied to and even the ones that want to have a good life don't have the skills or education to get it. The culture is very anti-establishment with the attitude of not succeeding in early school except for sports is one that fails 99% of that population in what reality is really like.

I for one feel that generations are lost in the black community and the only answer now is to work with the very young to change the culture that we see today for any hope at all.



edit on 23-2-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   
one last thing

the potus does not control the economy

if they did, everything would come up roses all the time and he would be beloved and re-elected

it is a massively complex thing with influences from all corners of the globe

blaming it on one man, republican or democrat, is ignorant



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
one last thing

the potus does not control the economy

if they did, everything would come up roses all the time and he would be beloved and re-elected

it is a massively complex thing with influences from all corners of the globe

blaming it on one man, republican or democrat, is ignorant


Er. He was re-elected. His popularity is allegedly stll around 54%.

He sure does when he handles stimulus and bailouts, and nixes Clintons welfare reform. He sure does when he makes it so "journaling" and bedrest is considered suitable work to continue unemployment benefits.

He sure does when he campaigns for an increase in minimum wage so his Union pals get a secret back door raise on the backs of the working poor and struggling small businesses.

He sure does when he creates "Affordable Healthcare" that is anything but.

He sure does when he road blocks the oil pipeline because his pal from New York owns the railroad that transports the oil curently, and it may put him out of business if it gets built.

He sure does when he threatens the coal industry such that "your electric costs will necessarily skyrocket".

He sure does when the gas prices go down long enough for him to get re-elected, then shoot back up to pre-election prices, and even higher post-election.

He sure does when he tries to lie about sequestration that he said if anyone tried to stop it, he would veto it, then goes on a public rant that the sequestration is the GOP's fault.

edit on 23-2-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


He didn't nix Clintons welfare "reform".

He gave states more power over their work requirement programs.


Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked.


www.factcheck.org...

I stopped read there because you really have no clue what you are talking about and are still repeating talking points from Romney attack ads. lol
edit on 23-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
It's really not that hard to understand.

The Democrats NEED a permanent underclass. A victim. They have no interest in seeing the ghetto black (or white or hispanic for that matter) community succeed. They want generations on welfare and handouts. This assures they stay in power. That means some section of society NEEDS them. And they get re-elected.

They seek to create class warfare and racial hatred.

I hate Republicans, but I REALLY hate Democrats for their false concern about the black community. They don't give a # about anything other than votes.

Don't believe it? Just look at the venom and vitriol spewed against any black man that votes against the plantation. He's called a house n*gger, uncle tom or worse.

Should they vote Republican? No. The political system in this country is broken. Were it up to me, any congressman or congresswoman found guilty of accepting bribes from lobbyists would be jailed for life.

It's just the whole "we care about blacks" # that they keep peddling that on the one hand makes me laugh and makes me sad at the same time.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Libertygal
 


He didn't nix Clintons welfare "reform".

He gave states more power over their work requirement programs.


Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked.


www.factcheck.org...

I stopped read there because you really have no clue what you are talking about and are still repeating talking points from Romney attack ads. lol
edit on 23-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Too bad you didn't read closely enough.

1. I SAID I am NOT a Romney supporter. Lol

2. Labels suck. Lol

3. I said he ended Clinton Welfare Reform with the stimulus Bill. Lol

4. That was 2009/2010. Lol

5. For those with short term memories, that was pre-Romney. Lol

6. I have never seen a Romney attack add. Lol

7 Fact Check? Lol

8. Did I mention, labels suck? Lol

m.washingtontimes.com...


Under the guise of helping unemployed Americans in a tough
economy, the Obama administration and its congressional allies
are reversing the 1996 welfare reforms that have been lauded as
an overwhelming success by Republicans and Democrats alike
for lifting millions of Americans from poverty.

(Snip)

Despite its success, or perhaps because of it, President Obama
and his allies are doing all they can to destroy welfare reform.
Mr. Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package essentially abolished welfare reform
expansion of welfare rolls. The federal government now pays
states 80 percent of the cost for each new family they add to
their welfare rolls, a move that eliminates states’ incentive to
push welfare recipients into the job force.



www.heritage.org...


A major public policy success, welfare reform in the
mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare
dependency and child poverty. This successful
reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted
provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and
U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic
reform.

(Snip)

The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the
fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an
AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since
1996, the federal government would begin paying
states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads.


Ok, I proved I do my own fact checking based on the topic, not a straw man argument that has zero to do with it. I proved what I was saying with fact, did you? Oh, I forgot, you brought nothing to the discussion but an attempt to derail with partisan attack and a straw man argument, and then attempted to use personal attacks to belittle me by claiming, "Oh look, a Romney supporter! Don't listen to her!"

You failed.


edit on 23-2-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Libertygal
 


He didn't nix Clintons welfare "reform".

He gave states more power over their work requirement programs.


Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific “work activities,” such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a “more efficient or effective means to promote employment,” which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an “evaluation plan” that includes “performance measures” that must be met — or the waiver could be revoked.


www.factcheck.org...

I stopped read there because you really have no clue what you are talking about and are still repeating talking points from Romney attack ads. lol
edit on 23-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Too bad you didn't read closely enough.

1. I SAID I am NOT a Romney supporter. Lol

2. Labels suck. Lol

3. I said he ended Clinton Welfare Reform with the stimulus Bill. Lol

4. That was 2009/2010. Lol

5. For those with short term memories, that was pre-Romney. Lol

6. I have never seen a Romney attack add. Lol

7 Fact Check? Lol

8. Did I mention, labels suck? Lol

m.washingtontimes.com...


Under the guise of helping unemployed Americans in a tough
economy, the Obama administration and its congressional allies
are reversing the 1996 welfare reforms that have been lauded as
an overwhelming success by Republicans and Democrats alike
for lifting millions of Americans from poverty.

(Snip)

Despite its success, or perhaps because of it, President Obama
and his allies are doing all they can to destroy welfare reform.
Mr. Obama’s $862 billion stimulus package essentially abolished welfare reform
expansion of welfare rolls. The federal government now pays
states 80 percent of the cost for each new family they add to
their welfare rolls, a move that eliminates states’ incentive to
push welfare recipients into the job force.



www.heritage.org...


A major public policy success, welfare reform in the
mid-1990s led to a dramatic reduction in welfare
dependency and child poverty. This successful
reform, however is now in jeopardy: Little-noted
provisions in the U.S. House of Representatives and
U.S. Senate stimulus bills actually abolish this historic
reform.

(Snip)

The House and Senate stimulus bills will overturn the
fiscal foundation of welfare reform and restore an
AFDC-style funding system. For the first time since
1996, the federal government would begin paying
states bonuses to increase their welfare caseloads.


Ok, I proved I do my own fact checking based on the topic, not a straw man argument that has zero to do with it. I proved what I was saying with fact, did you? Oh, I forgot, you brought nothing to the discussion but an attempt to derail with partisan attack and a straw man argument, and then attempted to use personal attacks to belittle me by claiming, "Oh look, a Romney supporter! Don't listen to her!"

You failed.


edit on 23-2-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



I think I'm in love with you.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Never-mind.... I don't feel like arguing this




You failed.


Nah, but you should lay off the heritage foundation articles.

edit on 23-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Never-mind.... I don't feel like arguing this




You failed.


Nah, but you should lay off the heritage foundation articles.

edit on 23-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)


Because you were proven wrong and made yourself look silly.

Because you have nothing to argue, no points to make, you were clearly wrong.

I will not "lay off" any articles. I used multiple sources to prove my statement. Would you like more proof? I am sure I could find perhaps 15 more.

Wallstreet Journal

m.wsj.com...

Yahoo.com

m.voices.yahoo.com...

Washington Times

m.washingtontimes.com...

US News

mobile.usnews.com...


edit on 23-2-2013 by Libertygal because: ETA Links
edit on 23-2-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 08:03 PM
link   


He sure does when he tries to lie about sequestration that he said if anyone tried to stop it, he would veto it, then goes on a public rant that the sequestration is the GOP's fault.


Exactly.... right now before your eyes people!!



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 





Because you were proven wrong and made yourself look silly.


Nope. He didn't change welfare reform. Still has the same time lifetime limits and program as in 1996. The states have more power over the work requirements now.

And the additional funds to the states welfare programs were temporary, only lasting 2 years. The funding that "gutted welfare" expired. However giving more money to states in a recession is "gutting welfare"........

en.wikipedia.org...

But this is off topic, so I'm not gonna continue.

edit on 23-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I guess since they cant force you to do anything, they will cater to your social mores.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by WaterBottle
reply to post by Libertygal
 





Because you were proven wrong and made yourself look silly.


Nope. He didn't change welfare reform. Still has the same time lifetime limits and program as in 1996. The states have more power over the work requirements now.

And the additional funds to the states welfare programs were temporary, only lasting 2 years. The funding that "gutted welfare" expired. However giving more money to states in a recession is "gutting welfare"........

en.wikipedia.org...

But this is off topic, so I'm not gonna continue.

edit on 23-2-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



Wow. You have the intestinal fortitude to insult one of my sources, then cite Wikipedia?!

The funny thing is, once again, you have exactly proven my point for me. I never said he "Gutted welfare", that IS from the 2012 talking points, the partisan attacks.

What he did was end Clinton Welfare Reform, and PAY STATES A BONUS to increase their welfare rolls.

So, while trying to argue the point, you see, you actually proved it is true.

It IS on topic, because the topic was about poor black, hispanic and whites, on welfare, and I expounded on how welfare entraps people by making them complacent, removes will, drive, desire, and personal intent to succeed through placating people.

Clinton reform worked, because it increased personal drive to succeed, helped more with job placement and education, and took away lifetime welfare. I saw a video of a woman living in the projects that had been there 52 years. She had raised multiple children who were all on welfare, and was welcoming her grandchildren into the welfare system. Eye opening video. Clinton put a stop to that. Obama brought it back.

Blacks are by far the largest majority group on welfare that are victimized while states make profits from the Federal government for increasing welfare rolls.

Thanks for the support!



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by neoholographic
 



So I see, Obama can't give us his greatness because he's blocked by fillibusters even though he had the House and Senate on lock when he first got into office and he could of done some of these wonderful things then.


Obama has never controlled the house.


This clearly shows the problem. Obama followers have nothing but excuses for Obama. He never has to take responsibility for nothing he has done. It's always someone elses fault.



I don't support Obama, but I do understand that MOST things, are not his fault. MOST things, are the fault of CONGRESS.


This hurts the black community as well as the rest of the Country.


The fact that you separate the two above as magically being different somehow, is 50% of your country's problem.

~Tenth


Holy freakin' cow your supposed to moderate! If you see an error in protocol you should speak up. If you disagree that Blacks are hurt, make your point.

But when you are CLEARLY in error (in this case forgetting the House and the Senate were D controlled during Obama's presidency), then I think in fairness to the posters here that you should practice:

"Discretion is the better part of valor."

Clearly the Black community has suffered the most since Wall st got their bonuses for stealing money, then declared 'to big to fail" as our leaders allowed it to happen. Thus, creating a problem for the middle class where many working blacks and of course where many of the people who are white are financially. The OP is right in his assessment of whom has benefited the most and who has suffered the most. Please, give him that right to believe that he can say this without drawing the moderator to speak unless he steps over the agreed upon rules or this site ceases to be relevant anymore for me and others.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


I stand by my post still, racism and/or race wars are far from any issue right now in our political system.

During an election year is really the ONLY time you will hear any politician attempting to reach out to specific racial groups. That is only when they have a chance to be benefitted with more votes. Any other time anything to do with race is so far from PC that politicians generally don't want to touch it. Even our racist politicians (and I am sure there are many) are forced to hide their feelings since showing it would be political suicide.

Once elected though the only people heard are people with money. Politicians only really care about those that can help further their status or career. They will pander to those that might contribute to future campaigns since so much money is required to have a chance to be elected for anything, anyone else is not heard.

Both parties are horrible, everyone is so quick to demonize one or the other with ignorant claims of how evil they are while their party is great. We in the U.S. are to quick to want to blame someone else we will jump on the first thing someone mentions and cling to it while ignoring the real problem.

We will never have an average citizen to speak for us unless they are hand chosen by people with money, power and influence. We need to stop blaming everyone and eveything else like race or the other party with stupid comments against the average person in our country.

When there are problems we need to look to leaders, all leaders, wich would be every single politician in office.





new topics
top topics
 
31
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join