BlurOfSerenity
New Member
(couldnt resist!)
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.
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'.
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.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.
World Bank report -*Note: PDF"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"
I'm afraid the same could be said if Hilary had won. She's a WOMAN!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.
you know, the stuff about the blacks just waiting for their checks. cuz that's what they do... take government handouts.
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.
Including stay-at-home mothers? People who just lost their jobs because of the recession? Retired people? Full-time students?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.
It is those in "da hood" who are expecting a big return on their voting investment.
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?
Nice straw man - did you stuff it yourself?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?
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!...
I think I am going to be sick
Steve Kangas said: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.
wow. your social consciousness is just beaming tonight, isn't it?
2minkey said:you know, the stuff about the blacks just waiting for their checks. cuz that's what they do... take government handouts.
Most people in the country are actually expecting big improvements over the last 8 years.