• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Black America Regressing Under Obama; Prospered Under Reagan



Them fellas ain't runnin nowhere!!


So let me get this straight ... 25% of a subset of Americans that accounts for about 15% of the population being mired in poverty is somehow a bigger deal than the 10% of another subset of Americans that accounts for 75% of the population that are also mired in poverty. (HINT: The smaller percentage accounts for about 2.5 times the number of people as the larger percentage).

Here's an idea, let's figure out real ways to help people in poverty (and I'm not talking about handing out cash) regardless of their subset, because fewer impoverished people will make the nation stronger as a whole.
 
No one is debating that Bush created TARP to bail out the banks in December 2008. It was up to Obama as of January 2009 to judicially administer to the program, something he did not do.

TARP has completely been repaid.
 
The economy is still in the toilet...

10303461_10153230292999516_4119563870001525704_n.jpg
 
Johnson wasn't POTUS in 1970.

The effects of his Great Society policies continued, however. Federal spending in 1969 was the result of Johnson's last budget.

>>Dubya outspent Clinton.

Fighting an unnecessary and disastrous war in Iraq, largely due the influence of Chicken Hawks like Cheney and Rumsfeld.

>>Your own graph shows a decrease in black poverty during the Reagan Administration.

Does it? Black poverty was up in his first term and then down in his second. This reflects my statement that you quoted: "Contrast that with the increases of 1980-83 (Reagan)."

Federal deficits increased sharply under Reagan. This had a highly stimulative impact on the economy.

Let's look at the black poverty rate numbers:

1966 — 41.8
1967 — 39.3
1968 — 34.7
1969 — 32.2
1970 — 33.5

[Down sharply under Johnson]

1971 — 1980 [varied between 30.3 and 32.5]

1981 — 34.2
1982 — 35.6
1983 — 35.7

[Up in Reagan's first term]

1984 — 1993 [varied between 30.7 and 33.8]

1994 — 30.6
1995 — 29.3
1996 — 28.4
1997 — 26.5
1998 — 26.1
1999 — 23.6
2000 — 22.5
2001 — 22.7
2002 — 24.1
2003 — 24.4
2004 — 24.7
2005 — 24.9
2006 — 24.3
2007 — 24.5
2008 — 24.7
2009 — 25.8
2010 — 27.4
2011 — 27.6
2012 — 27.2
2013 — 27.2

[Steady decline under Clinton. Moderate increase under Bush 43 at first, and then basically flat. Another moderate increase under Obama's first budget as he was busy avoiding a worldwide Depression, and a slight decline since then.]

Here's an interesting number:

1959 — 55.1

blatant feigned interest in blacks for political purposes

I can't say whether the interest was "feigned" or not, but the results speak for themselves.

When Democrats are in office the qualifications for employment are much more loose then when Republicans are in office and that is why the percentages rise

Complete nonsense. And what do you mean by "the qualifications for employment"?
 
Last edited:
:lamo

Black Americans have been blindly giving their loyalty to the democrats for decades. The results speak for themselves. But really...none of this is anything new.

When given the chance, Republicans cut programs that the middle-class (including most blacks) use, while gerrymandering voting districts that dilute black representation while also passing laws that keep blacks from voting. I just can't imagine why Republicans aren't able to attract black voters.
 
When given the chance, Republicans cut programs that the middle-class (including most blacks) use, while gerrymandering voting districts that dilute black representation while also passing laws that keep blacks from voting. I just can't imagine why Republicans aren't able to attract black voters.
Do you think Gerrymandering is unique to the GOP. Do you think cutting funds to one group of programs and increasing spending in another to attract a base is unique to the GOP. And do you think that, considering the voting history of black Americans since the 50's, the GOP has any reason, rationale, or even desire to specifically target the black vote?

Political groups know who they have in the W column. The goal is to seek the undecided and middle of the road voters. Mindless partisan hacks vote party ticket. Nothing a politician says will sway mindless partisan hacks. Black Americans vote democrat. Nothing a GOP candidate says will sway them as a voting bloc. Nothing. They may attract some...especially those that have managed to work their way out of poverty. But unless there is a radical change, the best that the GOP can hope for with black Americans as voters is that the democrats put up someone that has such little appeal that they wont bother to go to the polls.

Thats just reality.
 
By James Agresti
March 25, 2015

The Washington Post recently published two opinion pieces in which the authors claimed that the economic policies of President Ronald Reagan—called Reaganomics—wreaked financial havoc on African Americans. To the contrary, the incomes of black households and families broadly rose during the Reagan administration, while in contrast, they have generally fallen during the current economic recovery.

In a March 1st column, Courtland Milloy showered praise on a playwright named August Wilson while wondering aloud if "there was a way for black boys in our public schools to benefit from Wilson's potentially life-changing insights." Milloy then proposed creating a school for "boys of color" in which Wilson's works would help the boys "understand the world around them." Milloy singled out one of Wilson's plays entitled King Hedley, which "represents the tumultuous 1980s, when Reaganomics and crack cocaine inflicted damages from which many black communities never recovered."

Relatedly, in a March 6th op-ed, poet and former model Jewel Allison joined a growing group of women who have stepped forward to accuse Bill Cosby of raping them. Allison stated that Cosby assaulted her in the late 1980s, but she waited more than two decades to reveal this because he was "one of the African American community's most celebrated and admired icons," and she did not want to damage his reputation for fear that this would harm other black Americans. "In the 1980s, when The Cosby Show aired," she explained, "African Americans were suffering more than most from the combined scourge of Reaganomics, AIDS and the crack epidemic."

Despite the very real harm caused by the transmission of HIV and use of crack cocaine, the claim that black Americans financially regressed during the presidency of Ronald Reagan is at odds with reality. Like President Obama, Reagan entered office under the specter of a major recession that ended early in his 8-year tenure (1981-1989). In the ensuing recovery, which began in 1982 and lasted through Reagan's second term, the Census Bureau records that the inflation-adjusted median cash income of black households rose by 12% or $3,306.

For a point of comparison, during the four years of available data on the most recent economic recovery (2010-2013), the median income of black households fell by 2.2% or $793.

(Excerpt)

Read more:
Black America Regressing Under Obama; Prospered Under Reagan | CNS News

I once heard a candidate claim that the present president at that time in 2008 was divisive and derisive and downright Un-American. In the passing eight years since the winner of two presidential elections has done more to destroy the core economy of America and derisively reduced the employment of Americans, especially those of color. The question must be posed as to why Obama has divisively raised racial bias and encouraged division of races whether black, brown or white. Was this the pledge of Obama to "Fundamentally Transform America"? After 7 years all indications seem to point to Obama's promise as meant to hurt not heal America.

You are comparing apples and oranges. The benchmark for the 1980s likely traces its roots to Brown V Board Of Education. It takes time to desegregate and it takes time for those kids to work their way through school. When you track data as though a President inherits nothing and leaves no legacy, you are selling agenda not serious thought.
 
When given the chance, Republicans cut programs that the middle-class (including most blacks) use, while gerrymandering voting districts that dilute black representation while also passing laws that keep blacks from voting. I just can't imagine why Republicans aren't able to attract black voters.
Republicans supported the gerrymandering that was done to increase the influence of the black vote. They supported it because it diluted the influence of Democrats, which is why the Democrats opposed it.

"passing laws that keep blacks from voting"????????????
 
Them fellas ain't runnin nowhere!!


So let me get this straight ... 25% of a subset of Americans that accounts for about 15% of the population being mired in poverty is somehow a bigger deal than the 10% of another subset of Americans that accounts for 75% of the population that are also mired in poverty. (HINT: The smaller percentage accounts for about 2.5 times the number of people as the larger percentage).

Here's an idea, let's figure out real ways to help people in poverty (and I'm not talking about handing out cash) regardless of their subset, because fewer impoverished people will make the nation stronger as a whole.

It would actually be economical more sound to simply hand them the money instead of having the welfare bureaucracy ...
 
Complete nonsense. And what do you mean by "the qualifications for employment"?

It doesn't seem that bright to claim what I said is complete nonsense and then ask what I meant... :lol:
 
It would actually be economical (sic) more sound to simply hand them the money instead of having the welfare bureaucracy ...
Since SNAP has @ 8% in total admin costs, how exactly would you determine who gets the "handed out money" at a lower level of overhead?

Of course, this assumes that you are OK with "handed out money" (SNAP) being spent on anything.
 
It doesn't seem that bright to claim what I said is complete nonsense and then ask what I meant... :lol:
Of course it make perfect sense to say it does not make sense.....and ask for a clarification of what was stated.

As I showed previous, what you write make little sense.
 
Of course it make perfect sense to say it does not make sense.....and ask for a clarification of what was stated.

As I showed previous, what you write make little sense.

He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense. That is a phrase uttered when you understand the point and can refute it. To then turn around and ask what I meant shows he didn't understand so making the claim that it is complete nonsense was stupid. :lol:

Your pathetic attempt at understanding is simply ****ing funny... :lol:
 
That makes even less sense....but then, that was expected.

It was a double post... but you trying to make a point out of it only further illustrates the futility of you making a cogent argument... :lol:
 
He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.
Um, here, in the US, using US English, "nonsense"="does not make sense".

FFS!



That is a phrase uttered when you understand the point and can refute it.
Not necessarily.
To then turn around and ask what I meant shows he didn't understand so making the claim that it is complete nonsense was stupid. :lol:
There you go again.....and further.....you still have clarified nothing.

Your pathetic attempt at understanding is simply ****ing funny... :lol:
On the contrary...your inability to explain your statements more clearly is the problem. You are still making nonsensical argument and are not clarifying anything.....in fact you are digging your hole deeper. Further, I'm still waiting on how you propose to "hand out cash" at a lower overhead.....and i see no answer....just semantic nonsensical diversions.
 
It was a double post... but you trying to make a point out of it only further illustrates the futility of you making a cogent argument... :lol:
Pro tip: We have the ability to delete double posts.

Still waiting for your plan to "hand out cash" responsibly at a lower overhead.
 
Um, here, in the US, using US English, "nonsense"="does not make sense".

FFS!

Ummm... Wrong. 100% wrong.

non·sense
(nŏn′sĕns′, -səns)
n.
1. Words or signs having no intelligible meaning:
2. Subject matter, behavior, or language that is foolish or absurd..


nonsense - definition of nonsense by The Free Dictionary

Doesn't make sense
Something that is confusing, hard to understand


Urban Dictionary: Doesn't make sense

Doesn't makes sense is when you are unclear and want clarification.

Complete nonsense is when you are clear and are 100% sure that they are incorrect.

Grammar = Not your friend.

There you go again.....and further.....you still have clarified nothing.

I don't clarify to people that 1. don't even understand the foundation of a point and 2. are wrong, rude and idiotic in trying to prove they are right.

On the contrary...your inability to explain your statements more clearly is the problem. You are still making nonsensical argument and are not clarifying anything.

Wait! He was critical of what I said... he was wrong about that and I am the one not being clear?! :lol:

....in fact you are digging your hole deeper. Further, I'm still waiting on how you propose to "hand out cash" at a lower overhead.....and i see no answer....just semantic nonsensical diversions.

I don't answer blow hards until they catch up...

Pro tip: We have the ability to delete double posts.

Still waiting for your plan to "hand out cash" responsibly at a lower overhead.

It was deleted before you posted this. Pro-tip: you are in the bush leagues kiddo. :lol:
 
Um, here, in the US, using US English, "nonsense"="does not make sense".
Ummm... Wrong. 100% wrong.
Doesn't make sense
Wow...it is right there, you quoted it.....and you still deny it. AMAZING!

Doesn't makes sense is when you are unclear and want clarification.
Actually, you were unclear, your statement(s) make no sense, and you did not clarify them....at all.

Complete nonsense is when you are clear and are 100% sure that they are incorrect.
Maybe in NZ, perhaps that is how the Southern Hemisphere spins it.

Grammar = Not your friend.
The irony...



I don't clarify to people that 1. don't even understand the foundation of a point and 2. are wrong, rude and idiotic in trying to prove they are right.
When you do not present a clear point, when you present nonsense.....it is our fault.

Got it.



Wait! He was critical of what I said... he was wrong about that and I am the one not being clear?! :lol:
You never proved you were correct, you still have not...because you have not made a clear point(s).



I don't answer blow hards until they catch up...
This is pure trolling.



It was deleted before you posted this.
Glad you found the delete button.
Pro-tip: you are in the bush leagues kiddo. :lol:
I suppose I am when I expect posters to clearly state how they propose to "hand out cash" responsibly at a lower level of admin costs. I know I'm in the "bush league" when said poster wants to argue about semantics instead of explaining said "plan."

Sigh...
 
Wow...it is right there, you quoted it.....and you still deny it. AMAZING!

If this is really your comprehension level I have to say it is a little bit scary... you need better reader/writer teacher aid support.

This is pure trolling.

I hope that is what you are doing because otherwise you have to go back to 5th grade and get your money back...
 
WWhen you do not present a clear point, when you present nonsense.....it is our fault.

Got it.

:facepalm:

Glad you found the delete button.

Is that your way of trying to back away from making an ass of yourself? :lol:
 
If this is really your comprehension level I have to say it is a little bit scary... you need better reader/writer teacher aid support.
Your response is pure ad-hominem, no attempt to clarify your comments after multiple requests.



I hope that is what you are doing because otherwise you have to go back to 5th grade and get your money back...
This again is trolling and off topic.
 
:facepalm:



Is that your way of trying to back away from making an ass of yourself? :lol:
You just cannot bring yourself to respond to the requests of clarifying how you would responsibly "hand out cash" with less administrative costs.

So be it.
 
Your response is pure ad-hominem, no attempt to clarify your comments after multiple requests.



This again is trolling and off topic.

Sorry... since you came at me and took me out of context and/or misrepresented what I said in an effort to hope and be clever, I really have to move on to something better worthy of my time. Primarily because you either aren't that clever of a troll or just don't get it, and that is worse... either way have a nice day.
 
Back
Top Bottom