Blacks' Dilemma with Obama

[Little-Acorn]

I've never heard this said better.

--------------------------------------------

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2011/08/22/blacks_dilemma_with_obama/page/full/

Blacks' Dilemma With Obama

by Star Parker http://media.townhall.com/Townhall//colPics/columnistsstarparker.gif
8/22/2011

Election of our nation's first black president is delivering an unexpected message to our black population.

Blacks are discovering that what a man or woman does -- their actions -- is what matters, not the color of their skin.

It seems ridiculous to point out that this was supposedly the point of the civil rights movement. Purge racism from America.

But blacks themselves have been the ones having the hardest time letting it go.

It is not hard to understand why black Americans were happy that a black man was elected president of the United States. It was kind of a final and most grand announcement that racism has finally been purged from America.

But for the highly politicized parts of black America this was certainly not the only message. Because for the highly politicized parts of black America, the point has always been to keep race in American politics.

For black political culture that dominated after the civil rights movement, the point was not just equal treatment under the law, but special treatment under the law. Plus the assumption that more black political power -- defined by more blacks holding office -- would mean that blacks would be better off.

In other words, post-civil rights movement black political culture embraced an agenda exactly the opposite of what the civil rights movement was about. Its agenda was to get laws and policies that were not neutral but racially slanted and to put individuals in power based on their race and not on their character and capability.

So, according to the script of this political culture, election of a black man as president meant more than an end to racism. The conclusion had to be that if the man holding the highest political office in the nation was black, it must follow that blacks would be better off.

Now blacks have a dilemma. We have a black president and blacks are worse off. Not just a little, but a lot worse off.

In the words of longtime Congressional Black Caucus member Maxine Waters, D-Calif., "Our people are hurtin'.."

Blacks now grapple with two possible conclusions.

One, our black president is a traitor to his race. Our struggles put him in power and now he's not taking care of his folks. He's become, in the words of left wing professor and activist Cornel West, a "mascot" of Wall Street.

Or, two, that the man's performance reflects his views and his capability, not his race. He's not delivering for anyone. Blacks are hurting more because they were already in worse shape when Obama got elected. Bad policies hurt the weakest the most.

And it happens that the bad policies that have always failed are the big government liberalism that has defined modern black politics.

With further thought, blacks might realize it's this same flawed idea -- that growing government and electing black politicians would make blacks better off -- that explains why blacks have remained disproportionately "hurtin".

Take the Congressional Black Caucus itself. The average poverty rate in Black Caucus districts is almost 50 percent higher than the national average. Yet, these black politicians have 100 percent re-election rates.

Maybe a real bonus that will have come from electing a black president is that blacks will take seriously Dr. King's dream that we judge men by their character and not their color.

The Civil Rights Movement took blacks to the edge of the Promised Land. But political activism can only remove barriers to freedom.

It's up to the individual to embrace freedom and take on the personal responsibilities that go with it.

Maybe blacks will realize that they should blame Barack Obama. Not because he is black, but because he is a liberal. And because he has grown government to the point where the oxygen necessary for freedom and prosperity is being squeezed out of our nation.

[Kathianne]

Excellent article. The problems have hurt the weakest, certainly true. He doesn't care about people, but his ideas.

Sums up Obama for me. That all of his ideas come from the far left and that he bashes with calls for 'compromise' while doing anything but, not lost on many.

[fj1200]

http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2011/08/22/blacks_dilemma_with_obama/page/full/

Blacks' Dilemma With Obama

by Star Parker http://media.townhall.com/Townhall//colPics/columnistsstarparker.gif
8/22/2011

...
Take the Congressional Black Caucus itself. The average poverty rate in Black Caucus districts is almost 50 percent higher than the national average. Yet, these black politicians have 100 percent re-election rates.
...

Mind boggling.

[KartRacerBoy]

Excellent article. The problems have hurt the weakest, certainly true. He doesn't care about people, but his ideas.

Sums up Obama for me. That all of his ideas come from the far left and that he bashes with calls for 'compromise' while doing anything but, not lost on many.

Obama doesn't compromise? Jesus, your ideology blinds you to reality. The stimulus wasn't a compromise? The health care bill wasn't a compromise? The debt ceiling resolution wasn't a compromise?

Go ahead and hate the man but get your partisan head out of your ass.

You too, fj.

The absolute partisan stupidity on this board is staggering.

[Gaffer]

Obama doesn't compromise? Jesus, your ideology blinds you to reality. The stimulus wasn't a compromise? The health care bill wasn't a compromise? The debt ceiling resolution wasn't a compromise?

Go ahead and hate the man but get your partisan head out of your ass.

You too, fj.

The absolute partisan stupidity on this board is staggering.

The stimulus wasn't a compromise. He just did it. The health care wasn't a compromise, he just did it, with reid and polosi's help. The debt ceiling wasn't a compromise. He did nothing while the senate and house hashed it all out. He has done nothing and any accomplishments have been the work of other people.

I call him the dark lord or the dark one. It has never been because of his skin color, it's because of his character. He has surrounded himself with other dark character people. You sir really need to reflect on your blind support of this man.

[KartRacerBoy]

The stimulus wasn't a compromise. He just did it. The health care wasn't a compromise, he just did it, with reid and polosi's help. The debt ceiling wasn't a compromise. He did nothing while the senate and house hashed it all out. He has done nothing and any accomplishments have been the work of other people.

I call him the dark lord or the dark one. It has never been because of his skin color, it's because of his character. He has surrounded himself with other dark character people. You sir really need to reflect on your blind support of this man.

You really haven't read my posts on Obama, have you?

So not vetoing all of the legislative acts I mentioned, even if they didn't meet Obama's evil socialist or communist agenda, wasn't a compromise? Did he get everything he wanted? If he didn't everything he wanted, isn't that the DEFINITION of compromise?

WTF do you think compromise is, then?

[Gaffer]

You really haven't read my posts on Obama, have you?

So not vetoing all of the legislative acts I mentioned, even if they didn't meet Obama's evil socialist or communist agenda, wasn't a compromise? Did he get everything he wanted? If he didn't everything he wanted, isn't that the DEFINITION of compromise?

WTF do you think compromise is, then?

In washington it means the repubs give in and the liberals stand firm. He didn't veto anything because it was what he wanted. Maybe not all that he wanted to begin with but the rest will come later at the next compromise. The liberal machine doesn't have a reverse.

[KartRacerBoy]

In washington it means the repubs give in and the liberals stand firm. He didn't veto anything because it was what he wanted. Maybe not all that he wanted to begin with but the rest will come later at the next compromise. The liberal machine doesn't have a reverse.

Yeah. The tea party idiots have so much "give" in them. You're a funny absolutist. :laugh:

[Gaffer]

yeah. The tea party idiots have so much "give" in them. You're a funny absolutist. :laugh:

tea

[Missileman]

Yeah. The tea party idiots have so much "give" in them. You're a funny absolutist. :laugh:

Do you think the country will be better off 20 trillion in debt as opposed to 14 trillion?

[KartRacerBoy]

Do you think the country will be better off 20 trillion in debt as opposed to 14 trillion?

I'm a Keynsian. I think there is a time for spending and a time for paying off debt. This isn't the time for austerity.

People don't like to think it cz it hurts their brains, but there is a difference between personal finance and govt finance and economics.

[ConHog]

I'm a Keynsian. I think there is a time for spending and a time for paying off debt. This isn't the time for austerity.

People don't like to think it cz it hurts their brains, but there is a difference between personal finance and govt finance and economics.

And there is a difference between running a slight deficit when times are toughing and basically not giving a shit about even pretending to have a budget.

[Missileman]

I'm a Keynsian. I think there is a time for spending and a time for paying off debt. This isn't the time for austerity.


When is the right time? If spending will solve the problem, and to the dimwits in DC, tax cuts equal spending, then why not cut all the tax rates to zero and spend a gazillion dollars? According to your thinking, that'll fix everything.

[KartRacerBoy]

When is the right time? If spending will solve the problem, and to the dimwits in DC, tax cuts equal spending, then why not cut all the tax rates to zero and spend a gazillion dollars? According to your thinking, that'll fix everything.

I'm pretty sure I never said anything like that, but you enjoy that little ball of hate you live in. It must suck that folks disagree with your obvious brilliance.

And if you want me to play your childish game, by reducing tax rates to zero, tax revenues for the govt will soar to unlimited levels.

[Missileman]

I'm pretty sure I never said anything like that, but you enjoy that little ball of hate you live in. It must suck that folks disagree with your obvious brilliance.

Well do you think spending more money we don't have will fix things or not? It sure seemed you were saying now is the time for spending. If spending another trillion on a stimulus can fix our economy, just imagine how much better spending ten or even a hundred times more will work. We'll be the superest economy in the entire galaxy. :rolleyes:

[KartRacerBoy]

Well do you think spending more money we don't have will fix things or not? It sure seemed you were saying now is the time for spending. If spending another trillion on a stimulus can fix our economy, just imagine how much better spending ten or even a hundred times more will work. We'll be the superest economy in the entire galaxy. :rolleyes:

Really brilliant boy, how much economics have you studied or read? I'd love to hear it since you have such a strong opinion on the issue.

[Little-Acorn]

I'm a Keynsian.

My sympathies.

S&P's downgrading of the United States' credit rating, was the death knell of Keynesian economics in the Western hemisphere. (Just as the collapse of the Soviet Union twenty years ago was Keynesians' death knell in the eastern). Here in the West, the adults finally reached in and put a black mark on the teenagers' credit card, because the teenagers had abused it far too much doing exactly what the Keynesians told them to do.

Never has an entire philosophy, even one as cockeyed as Keynesian economics, been so resoundingly and convincingly repudiated across the entire planet in such a relatively short time. Even Communism collapsed in only HALF the planet... because it had never taken root in the other (more prosperous) half.

Must be sad to be such a lonely, abandoned orphan.

P.S. But there's a certain sad irony that the only people left who still support Keynesian economics, can't even spell it.

[Missileman]

Really brilliant boy, how much economics have you studied or read? I'd love to hear it since you have such a strong opinion on the issue.

I've asked you a few simple questions that you haven't answered yet...I'd like to hear your answers first.

In case you've forgotten them:

1. Do you think the country will be better off 20 trillion in debt as opposed to 14 trillion?

2. When is the right time? (to pay off debt)

3. If spending will solve the problem, and to the dimwits in DC, tax cuts equal spending, then why not cut all the tax rates to zero and spend a gazillion dollars?

4. Well do you think spending more money we don't have will fix things or not?

[fj1200]

You too, fj.

Before you take my name in vain again could you please tell me what you inferred from the two words I posted on this thread?

[ConHog]

I think there is a deeper issue the blacks better be concerned about . Will the shitty job Obama has done reflect on their entire race? It may be decades before America trusts a black man again.

[Kathianne]

This thread wins the logical fallacy thread of the day. Used often and with great verve! Impressive.

2383


One thread with how many fallacies?

[Trigg]

Obama doesn't compromise? Jesus, your ideology blinds you to reality. The stimulus wasn't a compromise? The health care bill wasn't a compromise? The debt ceiling resolution wasn't a compromise?

Go ahead and hate the man but get your partisan head out of your ass.

.

He shoved a stimulus bill, that republicans/independents didn't want, down our throats promising that "shovel ready" projects would "save or create" jobs. When that failed to keep unemployment down he simply said "I guess those shovel ready projects weren't so shovel ready".

He spent a YEAR doing nothing else put sending dems around to townhall meetings trying to convince people that his healthcare bill was a good idea.

Are you really one of those people, who of course doesn't work in healthcare who thinks those two things did the US any good at all?

Back to the article though. What do you think about what the lady wrote??? Here are blacks who voted en-mass for bambam at over 90%. Almost 3 years later, unemployment is up, gas is still high, the black middle class is disappearing and their support for him is still over 80%.

[Trinnity]

Great OP and spot on. Don't anyone be a sucker....he's an EPIC FAIL. :lame2:

[KartRacerBoy]

I've asked you a few simple questions that you haven't answered yet...I'd like to hear your answers first.

In case you've forgotten them:

1. Do you think the country will be better off 20 trillion in debt as opposed to 14 trillion?

2. When is the right time? (to pay off debt)

3. If spending will solve the problem, and to the dimwits in DC, tax cuts equal spending, then why not cut all the tax rates to zero and spend a gazillion dollars?

4. Well do you think spending more money we don't have will fix things or not?


If the economy was growing and producing, a hgher national debt is ok. How high the debt should be is a debatable point. $20 trillion? Where'd you get that number? Do I think we should have another stimulus of about the same size as the first one ($800 billion)? Yes, but it should go to infrastructure mostly and once again help states keep state employees in their jobs.

The time to pay off debt is when the economy is growing. There is nothing wrong with the theory of Keynesian (thanks acorn) economics. The problem is how it is implemented by Washington. Somehow the national debt got payed down under Bill Clinton in the 90s. Frankly, a political miracle. Both parties somehow acted rationally in the 90s, but they were helped by an economy that was going like gangbusters (largely due, IMO, to the opening up of consumer credit to everyone in the late 80s/early 90s).

So I do think more spending will help the economy. Will it turn it around? Probably not becz we will have to have stimulus each year unlil things start moving economically, and there simply sin't the political will to do that with the current austerity mentality on both sides. What additional stimulus will do is make things not as bad as they might have gotten. If we did have the political will to have a sufficiently large stimulus package for the next 2 or 3 years I do think we could turn the economy around.

The next question would be how to anticipate the economy turning around sufficiently early enough to taper down federal stimulus spending to avoid crowding out in the credit markets. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve should only allow the money supply to grow in tangent with GDP growth to avoid inflation. Right now money creation is far exceeding GDP growth, but that shouldn't hurt us in the near term, but it will have to be taken into consideration as the economy heats up.

[KartRacerBoy]

Before you take my name in vain again could you please tell me what you inferred from the two words I posted on this thread?

Sorry, fj. I was criticzing Kathianne's post and you somehow got swept up it becz I thought you were agreeing with her wholesale, rathing than just commenting on the reelection rates. Apologies.

[fj1200]

If the economy was growing and producing, a hgher national debt is ok.

Sure but there is no encouragement for the private sector to actually pick up the slack. But to coin a phrase...


The specific set of foolish ideas that has laid claim to the name 'Keynesian economics' is a crank doctrine that would have little influence if it did not appeal to the desire for power by the elites and politicians.

[KartRacerBoy]

That's your idea of evisceration, fj? :laugh:

[fj1200]

That's your idea of evisceration, fj? :laugh:

No, but Keynes v. Hayek did a nice job. :slap:

[KartRacerBoy]

No, but Keynes v. Hayek did a nice job. :slap:

Did you notice Keynes was knocked out and Hayek was jumping around as if he had won. Then the ref picked up Keynes and declared him the winner? :laugh:

[fj1200]

Did you notice Keynes was knocked out and Hayek was jumping around as if he had won. Then the ref picked up Keynes and declared him the winner? :laugh:

I did and I already gave my in-depth analysis in the other thread. Government chose the winner based on all evidence to the contrary. I bet you thought Spinks beat Tyson too. ;)

[Missileman]

If the economy was growing and producing, a hgher national debt is ok. How high the debt should be is a debatable point. $20 trillion? Where'd you get that number? Do I think we should have another stimulus of about the same size as the first one ($800 billion)? Yes, but it should go to infrastructure mostly and once again help states keep state employees in their jobs.

As I understand it, the debt ceiling deal that was just signed puts us on the path to be 20 trillion in debt in 10 years. They aren't cutting current spending enough to eliminate the deficit, so we are going to continue to go farther in the hole.



So I do think more spending will help the economy. Will it turn it around? Probably not becz we will have to have stimulus each year unlil things start moving economically, and there simply sin't the political will to do that with the current austerity mentality on both sides. What additional stimulus will do is make things not as bad as they might have gotten. If we did have the political will to have a sufficiently large stimulus package for the next 2 or 3 years I do think we could turn the economy around.

"Probably not", especially given the inarguable failure of the first stimulus is the reason a lot of us conclude more spending is NOT the answer.

[KarlMarx]

I'm a Keynsian. I think there is a time for spending and a time for paying off debt. This isn't the time for austerity.

People don't like to think it cz it hurts their brains, but there is a difference between personal finance and govt finance and economics.

It is time that you left the Dark Side and joined the light. Keynesian economics is voodoo economics. It is the economic theory of FDR and of Obama. Both failed to get us out of economic doldrums. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression. Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito did. The only way Obama is going to get us out of this economic mess is to leave office.

[KartRacerBoy]

It is time that you left the Dark Side and joined the light. Keynesian economics is voodoo economics. It is the economic theory of FDR and of Obama. Both failed to get us out of economic doldrums. FDR did not get us out of the Great Depression. Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito did. The only way Obama is going to get us out of this economic mess is to leave office.

Nice try. Voodoo economics is tag best left attached to its original subject, supply side or trickle down economics.

[fj1200]

Nice try. Voodoo economics is tag best left attached to its original subject, supply side or trickle down economics.

[pokes pins into Reagan doll/]


;)

[KartRacerBoy]

;)

I have some respect for Reagan that was only acquired in the last few years. I read a book or five about the relationship between Gorbachev and Reagan. Reagan, while being a demagogue on the Soviet Union, at least recognized Gorby as a leader that could lead the USSR to change. And he worked with Gorby to do just that, even though he opposed the hardliners before Gorby.

I voted for GHWB in 1988 because I thought we needed someone in power that had foreign policy experience as the USSR desolved and Eastern Europe opened up to the west. Herbert Walker was NOT like Reagan though and was very suspicious of Gorby motives (probably a result of his years in the CIA or just more cautious than Reagan). GHWB actually took actions that hurt democracy in the former Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, one never gets a true inside look into a politician's mind.

As for economics, while I think the Laffer curve has been taken to the extreme by the post-Reagan Republicans, it actually had some validity when marginal tax rates went way over 50%. Not so much when tax rates are in the 30s range. So while I think "trickle down economics" is absurd, Reagan's leadership of the revision of the income tax code was a good thing to me at the time. I was vastly disappointed with the so-called "tax simplification." All he really did was eliminate captial gain differentiated taxation (yay!) and collapse the tax rate structure to 3 rates. Simplification was supposed to be (ideally) a 2-4 different tax rates with no deductions. Ah, interest groups.

[fj1200]

I was vastly disappointed with the so-called "tax simplification." All he really did was eliminate captial gain differentiated taxation (yay!) and collapse the tax rate structure to 3 rates. Simplification was supposed to be (ideally) a 2-4 different tax rates with no deductions. Ah, interest groups.

Are you talking about '81 or '87? The Dems sponsored the '87 reform. I just saw that the corporate rate was raised that year, I think that was a mistake especially at a time when global competition was heating up.

[KartRacerBoy]

Are you talking about '81 or '87? The Dems sponsored the '87 reform. I just saw that the corporate rate was raised that year, I think that was a mistake especially at a time when global competition was heating up.

1986. Before I went to the Fed, I briefly worked at a financial planning firm in CT for executives (boring to me - hated it!). Back then, they all were given relatively small salaries but were given massive stock options. I can't recall if options were not taxed at all or were taxed at a much lower rate but I think the latter. One of the aims of the 86 law was to recapture that income for tax revenue and tax all types of income at the same rates so you didn't have what was essentially income go untaxed (or lower tax - 20%???).

[fj1200]

Back then, they all were given relatively small salaries but were given massive stock options. I can't recall if options were not taxed at all or were taxed at a much lower rate but I think the latter.

I think there are problems with executive compensation and how it's done here. I think shifting to stock options overstates their worth to the company where in a rising market you'll get option compensation whether you had direct effect or not. I think they should be taxed at income levels and not capital gain levels, at least until the executives cash in with their own money. I don't know how the taxation works exactly but there are issues IMO. The push back under Clinton in '92 to cap the amount of compensation that could be deducted by the corporation was a bad move that backfired by pushing more and more to the stock option route. Unintended consequences...

[LuvRPgrl]

Go ahead and hate the man but get your partisan head out of your ass.

You too, fj. .
Are you saying that K and FJ are having a conversation inside someone's ass ?


The absolute partisan stupidity on this board is staggering.

I see very little partisanship. Care to give a few examples, NOT NAMES, but postings and specifically what was said.

[Trinnity]

Obama will lose in 2012. AND a lot of Blacks with stay home.

[ConHog]

Obama will lose in 2012. AND a lot of Blacks with stay home.

And that is sad that they just won't vote because they will now Obama can't win.

[red states rule]

And that is sad that they just won't vote because they will now Obama can't win.

Given Obama 2012 re-election plan, how can they be excitied about the election?

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0920cd20110920035840.jpg