The Obama Paradox: Blacks suffered more under Obama than any other modern president

[NightHawkeye]

Are we still allowed to do this?

My apologies, Veritas. No offense intended.

 

[Vylo]

A bit of self-righteous word salad did nothing to shoot down anything.

no, but the hard numbers did.

And this is and always has been an obfuscation. I know you guys tried to blame that whole program on Bush, just as you did and continue to do with everything else that has ever or will ever go wrong during the Obama administration. However if you go back and watch that video, the woman wasn't shouting "Bushphone! Bushphone!" She was shouting "Obamaphone!"

That was, is, and always will be all that mattered, the visual of this woman shouting Obamaphone. To the low information voter the optics involved in this case were all that mattered. Obama loves me and Republicans are racist.

We aren't blaming anyone for anything, just stating who started the programs (which was actually Reagan, Bush just expanded it to cellphones.

Thing is the people responsible for making the phones free are......the phone companies. They are not obligated to do so to get their subsidies but are doing so anyhow.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nope.

Of course the debt has been raising. We know that without looking at a graph.

My point was that it is not as a result of new programs that gave great sums of money to poor black people, as is popularly assumed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Wealth is being generated at a rate unprecedented through out history. The people are not better off. Now what?

Please don't confuse bits with wealth.

Yes, stock prices are rising, and the rich have lots of bits expressing ever increasing net worth in their accounts due to quantitative easing. But the total amount of wealth has arguably stagnated worldwide in the last few years.

 

[Sistrin]

no, but the hard numbers did.

Who provided hard numbers?

 

[elliott95]

That's your position. Which I have no issue with.

That is the position of the OP statement, which nobody in this thread had taken issue with at the time of my positing.

Unless you can show that he's directly responsible, then it is not his fault, which means it's also not his failure.

It doesn't interest me if he is directly responsibe, only that the people who supported him the most have benefited the least.
If that is not seen as a failure, then nothing else would be.

Thirty minutes of staring at the same screen and I'm still at a loss as to how to respond to this sentence. So I'm moving on.

It is very important to understand. Conservatives don't consider progressive policies to be evil; just wrong through their ineffectiveness

I've talked to liberals my entire life and I've never gotten an impression from them that they absolutely want me dependent on government, period.

The expectations that are set up through such promises of cradle to grave security foster an entitlement mindset nevertheless.

Can you elaborate? What kinds of policies would you support?

No, that is fine. I am not here as your guru or spiritual and economic leader to lead you to the correct path.
The bigger question is now what kind of policies that you would advocate and support, given the failure of Obama's policies and promises to effectively and successfully improve the lot of black people.

I have no agenda to shove down your throat. I only note that the current plan that blacks overwhelmingly voted for is not working for them.

If you feel that blacks are better off than they were before, then there is no reason to change. Otherwise, the better response of a democratic, responsibile citizenry is to come up with a more effective plan and sell it to the rest of the country.

Don't look to me to develop a policy that will work for you. Look to yourself, and then show me how that will work for everybody.

 

[elliott95]

Please don't confuse bits with wealth.

Yes, stock prices are rising, and the rich have lots of bits expressing ever increasing net worth in their accounts due to quantitative easing. But the total amount of wealth has arguably stagnated worldwide in the last few years.

At least the housing bubble was producing some real wealth, in terms of jobs creating the houses, and infrastructure to support the new real estate.
That the actual financing of that building boom was pure fiction is another matter, but the wealth generated into people's pockets was real enough.

Quantitative easing is pure fiction. It is digital wealth. Huge numbers are being generated, bu the source is illusory, QE's that put money in the black column arbitrarily in the hope that something real might come out of it.

 

[Vylo]

Who provided hard numbers?

I believe it was the second post.

 

[doubtingmerle]

At least the housing bubble was producing some real wealth, in terms of jobs creating the houses, and infrastructure to support the new real estate.

Uh, workers working and building thing created more wealth. But the bubble itself created no new wealth. It created only numbers on paper that got wiped out.

Unfortunately the workers who were building huge houses were working on things that probably were not the best investment we could have made in terms of future prosperity.

 

[Rationalt]

What do people think of handling of obola crisis ?.

 

[elliott95]

Uh, workers working and building thing created more wealth. But the bubble itself created no new wealth. It created only numbers on paper that got wiped out.

Exactly. That is in complete agreement with what I said.

Unfortunately the workers who were building huge houses were working on things that probably were not the best investment we could have made in terms of future prosperity.

Probably not.
It was a great party while it lasted. The hangover has been a real humdinger though.

 

[Nithavela]

What do people think of handling of obola crisis ?.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Of course the debt has been raising. We know that without looking at a graph.

My point was that it is not as a result of new programs that gave great sums of money to poor black people, as is popularly assumed.

Exactly!

But that was both the promise and the pretense.

 

[elliott95]

Certainly, the rich have much to be thankful for in their voting for Obama, maybe even rich blacks.

The richest have not suffered under Obama, in spite of all the rhetoric. Black in general have suffered, in spite of all the promises.

 

[Belk]

Certainly, the rich have much to be thankful for in their voting for Obama, maybe even rich blacks.

The richest have not suffered under Obama, in spite of all the rhetoric. Black in general have suffered, in spite of all the promises.

When do the rich ever suffer?

 

[NightHawkeye]

When do the rich ever suffer?

Forcing a rich man to suffer monetary woes is nearly as difficult as passing a camel through a needle's eye.

 

[morningstar2651]

I don't understand your point of view on the falling poll numbers. What do you think is going on?

Did you know that conservative groups run fund-raising campaigns to fund anti-Obama advertising campaigns despite the guy not being up for re-election?

Are you on the Republican Party's mailing list? If so, you've likely gotten spammed with donation requests over the last few years asking you to give them money because OBAMA!

Even during this election year, I see several Obama attack ads and the guy isn't even running for office.

Conservative Groups Pour Millions Of Dollars Into Anti-Obamacare Ads
The NRA's Anti-Obama Ad Is Not Only Tasteless But Also Totally Unrealistic | Mother Jones
Conservative Group Tests 2014 Waters With Anti-Obamacare Ads - Kevin Glass
Republicans pull 'bad boyfriend' card again in new anti-Obama ad | MSNBC

 

[Sistrin]

Did you know that conservative groups run fund-raising campaigns to fund anti-Obama advertising campaigns despite the guy not being up for re-election?

His policies are still in place. Many Democrats running for office voted for and supported his policies. Thus, this is all fair game.

Just as the left did prior to the 2008 elections, distributing all that advertising tying Republican candidates to Bush.

 

[elliott95]

When do the rich ever suffer?

Under communism.

 

[Belk]

Under communism.

Only during the initial revolution.