America's first half-White president

[BlurOfSerenity]

(couldnt resist!)

 

[Cerise]

 

[2minkey]

What social consciousness?

None of it matters. When those in the hood don't get their checks, he'll be deemed as too white & not a true brotha.

you know, the stuff about the blacks just waiting for their checks. cuz that's what they do... take government handouts.

right, archie?

 

[Professur]

The more obvious connection between Jim's cast of characters shouldn't really be their 'race', but the areas they tried to control. Haiti, Zaire, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Liberia.

Known for poverty and corruption, high crime rates, war, genocide etc...
the fact of their country's racial makeup notwithstanding.. nobody could've rescued any of their 'presidencies'.

While i'm no expert on the rest, I have to hugely disagree with you about Zimbabwe. When the british held that land, it was the breadbasket of Africa. It was peaceful, safe and rich. Mugabe's actions in that country mirror closely what Hussien did with Iraq. Gave unwarranted (and unsupportable) rewards to his supporters (all the guys with the guns) disappeared his opponents and raped and pillaged eveyone else. His election even mirrored that of Saddam. While his country is starving and dying of cholera (a country that used to have the highest medical technology in Africa), he's trying to import weapons from N.Korea.

But that has nothing to do with being black, and everything to do with being a greedy human. Sorry Jim. You're wrong on this one, across the board. Beign black has nothing to do with being an ignorant tyrant. Whites, chinese, indians, arabs .... you can find a similar list for every race.

 

[MrBishop]

While i'm no expert on the rest, I have to hugely disagree with you about Zimbabwe. When the british held that land, it was the breadbasket of Africa. It was peaceful, safe and rich. Mugabe's actions in that country mirror closely what Hussien did with Iraq. Gave unwarranted (and unsupportable) rewards to his supporters (all the guys with the guns) disappeared his opponents and raped and pillaged eveyone else. His election even mirrored that of Saddam. While his country is starving and dying of cholera (a country that used to have the highest medical technology in Africa), he's trying to import weapons from N.Korea.

But that has nothing to do with being black, and everything to do with being a greedy human. Sorry Jim. You're wrong on this one, across the board. Beign black has nothing to do with being an ignorant tyrant. Whites, chinese, indians, arabs .... you can find a similar list for every race.

The British also held huge chunks of the rest of the Middle-East as we know it, India, Pakistan etc... I'm not blaming the Brits for giving it (Iraq/Ottoman) back(losing it, actually), per se..but the condition that it was in once they gave it back was diminished. The infighting and power-struggles that followed certainly didn't help.

As for Zimbabwe. It was profitable, safe etc...when the white settlers owned/controlled most of the arable land, most of the industry and economics. The withdrawl in the 80's wasn't pretty either. Mugabe is a first class schmo, but he's done a few things right.

"Zimbabwe gave priority to human resource investments and support for smallholder agriculture," and as a result, "smallholder agriculture expanded rapidly during the first half of the 1980s and social indicators improved quickly." From 1980 to 1990 infant mortality decreased from 86 to 49 per 1000 live births, under five mortality was reduced from 128 to 58 per 1000 live births, and immunisation increased from 25% to 80% of the population. Also, "child malnutrition fell from 22% to 12% and life expectancy increased from 56 to 64. By 1990, Zimbabwe had a lower infant mortality rate, higher adult literacy and higher school enrollment rate than average for developing countries"

World Bank report -*Note: PDF

That he came from a terrorist' background doesn't help his cause. He has done a lot of very bad things in the interim.

The point being...it's not his colour that counts as much as his situation.

 

[MrBishop]

But they won't think like you and I. They have had the "HE'S BLACK!" crap pushed down their throats for so long that this is all they will see.

They will not think of Obama as simply a failed president. They will thing of him as still one more failed Black man and that's the tragedy of it all.

Why is it that the same people who stood in the schoolhouse door; the same people who refused to seat a Black man to the Senate until ordered to do so by the court; the same ones who stood against the Civil Rights Act; the same ones who see a man's race before they recognize him as a man, the same ones who call others racist when that fact is brought to their attention? Pelosi, Reid, et al see Obama as "Our Boy" and you can bank money on that.

I see an American. I see a man. Maybe I don't like the man's politics or his ideology but I certainly don't equate his race with those things. He is a politician whose ideology and direction for this country suck out loud and he also happens to be Black -- or half-White, or half-Black, or half African, or whatever else anyone wants to make of it.

I for sure don't see his race as his most defining feature. I fear, however, that most Americans do; because it has been beaten into them for a year-and-a-half.

Maybe, now that this inauguration, coronation, ascension, or whatever else anyone wants to call it is over, we can get past his race and start trying to figure out what direction he wants to take this country.

I'm afraid the same could be said if Hilary had won. She's a WOMAN!

Obama's ethnicity shouldn't be an issue, but it is...because he's a 'first'. A first that couldn't even be invisioned 40 years ago. I personally couldn't care less what colour he is, or gender, or religion, or sexual orientation for that matter. He is an intelligent human being with charisma coming out the ying-yang. Both will help with the politics and foreigh relations aspect of his job. Hopefully, his counsellors will help with the rest.

Welcome to day 1 of the first 100 days. I'm sure that we'll all have more to say in 99 days, eh.

 

[Cerise]

you know, the stuff about the blacks just waiting for their checks. cuz that's what they do... take government handouts.

It is those in "da hood" who are expecting a big return on their voting investment. The fact that The Magic Negro has no Slave Blood in him went unnoticed when they pulled the lever.

None of it matters. When those in the hood don't get their checks, he'll be deemed as too white & not a true brotha.

People on public assistance should lose their right to vote, as they will vote themselves more benefits. Only taxpayers should decide who runs the country.

 

[MrBishop]

The 'magic negro' is a honkey construct, Cerise...to alleviate their un-pc thinking.

 

[Professur]

People on public assistance should lose their right to vote, as they will vote themselves more benefits. Only taxpayers should decide who runs the country.

Used to be land owners. After all, they owned the country as opposed to just living in it (or on it).

 

[MrBishop]

People on public assistance should lose their right to vote, as they will vote themselves more benefits. Only taxpayers should decide who runs the country.

Including stay-at-home mothers? People who just lost their jobs because of the recession? Retired people? Full-time students?

A bit of a stretch, donctha think?

 

[spike]

It is those in "da hood" who are expecting a big return on their voting investment.

Most people in the country are actually expecting big improvements over the last 8 years.

 

[Cerise]

Rush has taken some flack for using the term in a parody to poke fun at Al Sharpton:

Link to the tune at the bottom of the story......

"Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.

The L.A. Times, they called him that

'Cause he's not authentic like me.

Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper

Said he makes guilty whites feel good

They'll vote for him, and not for me

'Cause he's not from the hood"

 

[Cerise]

Including stay-at-home mothers? People who just lost their jobs because of the recession? Retired people? Full-time students?

A bit of a stretch, donctha think?

Will they be on welfare? Unemployment insurance isn't paid by the federal government. Social security isn't welfare. Disability isn't welfare. Don't full-time students live at home with their parents? Or on student loans?

 

[spike]

Unemployment insurance is tax money redistibuted to people not working. These other things that you say aren't welfare do indeed have different names, they also have something in common.

Also the law states that all citizens over 18 are allowed to vote except criminals in some cases. Why are you hating on America's system?

 

[MrBishop]

Will they be on welfare? Unemployment insurance isn't paid by the federal government. Social security isn't welfare. Disability isn't welfare. Don't full-time students live at home with their parents? Or on student loans?

Nice straw man - did you stuff it yourself?

Only taxpayers should decide who runs the country

Stay-at-home mothers, retired persons, f/t students and the recently jobless don't pay 'taxes' (I'm assuming that you're talking ONLY income tax here)

Care to try again?

 

[paul_valaru]

...

I think I am going to be sick

 

[MrBishop]

...

I think I am going to be sick

Hold on a second...I'm sure there's an empty can-of-worms around here somewhere. Someone must've opened it up..the damn wriglers are everywhere!

 

[randomJACKASS]

An interesting opinion piece that does seem to use actual numbers. I tend to agree with it more than not, but see for yourselves.

Myth: Welfare is to blame for runaway government spending.

Fact: Middle-class entitlements are to blame for runaway government spending.



Summary

The two largest welfare programs for the poor, AFDC and food stamps, each take up only 1 percent of the combined government budgets. Attempts to expand the definition of "welfare" to make this figure larger will inevitably include popular middle class programs like Medicaid and student loans.



Argument

One of the most popular myths is that welfare is a serious drag on the economy. Actually, it barely registers on the radar screen. The most vilified form of welfare is Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which allegedly gives poor mothers a financial incentive to avoid work and have babies. Yet in 1992, AFDC formed only 1 percent of the combined federal and state budgets. Food stamps also took up 1 percent. Both programs cost $24.9 billion each, comprising 1 percent each of the combined federal, state and local budget of $2,487 billion. (1)

Comparing the size of federal AFDC to other federal programs puts a great deal in perspective:

Federal AFDC Expenditures as Compared to Federal Spending in Other Areas (1993) (2)

Agency $ billions
--------------------------
AFDC 12
Medicaid 76
Medicare 131
Defense 281
Social Security 305

To rescue their point that welfare is responsible for runaway government spending, conservatives must expand the definition of "welfare" as much as possible. Unfortunately, AFDC and food stamps are by far the largest welfare programs for the poor, and any expanded definition is going to include popular middle class programs like Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, and pensions for needy veterans. In other words, conservatives must villainize the middle class if they wish to villainize the poor. But for the moment, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, and accompany their line of argument to the end:

Many conservatives expand "welfare" to include all one-way transfers of cash, goods or services to persons who make no payment and render no service in return. The Library of Congress provides a list of such programs (which will be included in the appendix below). In 1992, these expenditures for combined federal, state and local governments came to $289.9 billion, or 12 percent of the combined budget of $2,487 billion. (3) Keep in mind that this 12 percent includes such popular middle class programs as Medicaid, student grants, school lunches, pensions for needy veterans, etc.

If conservatives are still frustrated that this does not prove their point that government is drowning in welfare, then they might try expanding "welfare" to include all social welfare expenditures, which include every entitlement program under the sun, including Social Security and Medicare. (Forget, for the moment, that the middle class is defending these programs with bazookas and rocket launchers.) In 1992, these expenditures comprised 62 percent of combined government outlays. However, at least at the federal level, these benefits are paid to literally every income bracket, and in a remarkably proportional manner:

Distributions of Federal Funds by Income Bracket, Compared to Distribution
of Households by Income Bracket, CY 1991 (4)

Percent of Percent of
Income all households all benefits
-----------------------------------------------
Under $10,000 16.4% 17.8%
$10,000 - $20,000 18.8 21.7
$20,000 - $30,000 17.0 17.2
$30,000 - $50,000 23.6 21.8
$50,000 - $100,000 19.1 15.9
Over $100,000 5.1 5.6
As the above chart shows, the conservative's absurdism is now complete; he has declared class war against every member of society. But at least he has proven his point.

Source

BTW, Roosevelts "New Deals", were passed into law through legal and proper channels per the Constitution. You can argue all you want about the framers intentions but one argument that shoots it all down, is that things are a lot different now than then, and that, more than anything, the thing the framers held most dear was the will of the people, and if you took much of this miniscule part of the budget away the people by way of majority would object.

Besides the welfare reforms of the 90s really made it near impossible to get a free ride for long and provide more incentive to work than to not.

It is what it is, DEAL WITH IT! I don't think Barack will make much difference in the way of "handouts" anyway.

How about getting defense spending under control? How 'bout an end to "no bid contracts"? How about making the largest drain on the budget work efficiently, rather than whining about things that are irrelavent? How about reducing corruption? How about devising fair taxation?

Naw screw that, lets blame it on the poor! They can't afford to defend themselves anyway!

 

[H2O boy]

wow. your social consciousness is just beaming tonight, isn't it?

you know, the stuff about the blacks just waiting for their checks. cuz that's what they do... take government handouts.

the hood is 100% populated by blacks? wow

seems someone else may be guilty of stereotyping huh?

 

[H2O boy]

Most people in the country are actually expecting big improvements over the last 8 years.

and as has been proven ad nauseum, most people are idiots. they have to be, even by your own standard. most people voted for boooooosh too, didnt they?

cant have it both ways. pick a side on which you choose to be offended and stay with it. leave the flipflopping to the professionals