For Minnesota's minorities, the good life isn't as good
Please click onto the COMMENTS for the story.
posted by Bob at Sunday, February 01, 2009
Custom Search
Sunday, February 01, 2009
A DEMOCRACY TOWN HALL HOME
Do you have a topic you want to discuss at the Town Hall? Email your request to A_Democracy@yahoo.com
“A DEMOCRACY” Disclaimer- While the administrators and moderators of this forum will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore you acknowledge that all posts made to this forum express the views and opinions of the author and not the administrators, moderators (except for posts by these people) and hence will not be held liable.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned
THE ROOF GUYS
Mickey's Diner 1950 7th Street West, St Paul, MN
(651) 698-8387
AX-MAN SURPLUS
1639 University Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55104
Tel:(651)646-8653
LANDLORD.COM LINK HERE
SHHHH! While we listen to words of wisdom from a wise man.
Conscience is the light of the Soul that burns within the chambers of our psychological heart. It is as real as life is. It raises the voice in protest whenever anything is thought of or done contrary to the righteousness. Conscience is a form of truth that has been transferred through our genetic stock in the form of the knowledge of our own acts and feelings as right or wrong. A virtuous and courageous person can alone use the instrument of conscience. He or she can alone hear the inner voice of the soul clearly. In a wicked person this faculty is absent. The sensitive nature of his / her conscience has been destroyed by sin or corruption. Hence he or she is unable to discriminate right from wrong. Those who are leading organizations, business enterprises, institutions and governments should develop this virtue of the ability to use their own conscience. This wisdom of using the clean conscience will enable them to enjoy the freedom.
Dr APJ Kalam, President of India given during the inauguration of the seminar on “THE EFFECTS OF CORRUPTION ON GOOD GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Previous Posts
- NetRight Nation
- Saint Paul/ Home Prices By Neighborhood
- Say No to Cops: A Brief Case for Reduction and Eli...
- Former St. Paul officer charged with stabbing man ...
- Mayor begs for help!
- On St. Paul's chopping block: Rec centers, librari...
- Tonight on Hannity. "The Little Pink House"
- Fannie Mae Bans Eviction of Renters
- Saint Paul Fair Housing Lawsuits/ Motion to Strike...
- Cheating husband phone prank!
61 Comments:
Minnesota's minorities among those struggling most, survey says
By Richard Chin
rchin@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 02/01/2009 12:01:00 AM CST
Economically, Minnesotans are blessed with a Lake Wobegon, above-average life. As long as they're white.
Whites in this state are better off compared with whites in the rest of the nation in measures such as income, unemployment and poverty levels.
But if you're a black Minnesotan, odds are you are lagging blacks in the rest of the nation.
While the nation celebrated the inauguration of President Barack Obama as a milestone of what a black man can achieve in the United States, the gap between whites and blacks in Minnesota in income and poverty rates is bigger than in any other part of the country. And it seems to be growing.
That's the story told by U.S. Census Bureau survey data from 2005-07 called the American Community Survey.
For example, the numbers show that the white poverty rate during that period in Minnesota was about 7.6 percent, the sixth-lowest in the nation. Nationwide, the white poverty rate was 10.5 percent.
But the same data show a third of Minnesota blacks were living in poverty, the ninth-highest black poverty rate among states. Nationwide, one-fourth of blacks were in poverty.
Put another way, blacks nationwide are about 2.5 times as likely to be poor as whites nationwide. But Minnesota blacks are 4.4 times as likely to be poor as Minnesota whites, the largest difference in the nation.
Figures for median household income — the level at which half earn more and half less — tell a similar story.
Median household income for white Minnesota households was $57,314 in 2007 dollars during the survey period, compared with $53,000 for white households nationwide.
Black households in the state, however, had a median household income of only $28,667, compared with $33,407 for black households nationwide.
The gulf between black and white incomes in Minnesota — the black median household income here is only half that of whites — is the biggest among states.
Nationwide, the black median household income is 63 percent of white median household income.
A relatively strong local economy and good jobs, schools and health care have benefited most of the state's population, according to Myron Orfield, executive director of the University of Minnesota's Institute on Race and Poverty.
"The whites are especially well off," Orfield said.
But many of the state's minorities have been younger migrants and immigrants who likely arrived on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, according to state demographer Tom Gillaspy.
They've been further handicapped by ending up in racially segregated neighborhoods and schools, Orfield said.
"We don't know how to deal well with diversity and integrating services," said Katherine Fennelly, a professor in the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
Compared with other urban areas, the Twin Cities area has fewer middle-class African-Americans and American Indians, and it lacks the Hispanic middle class seen in some Southwestern states, Fennelly said.
Orfield said gaps between minorities and whites in the state aren't limited to income and poverty rates. They also include factors like incarceration rates and mortgage lending.
"There's shocking disparity across all sorts of levels," he said.
Minnesota's blacks also had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, according to the 2005-07 data. The survey showed about 16.3 percent of black Minnesotans in the work force were unemployed, compared with 12.7 percent of blacks nationwide.
The black unemployment rate in Minnesota was 3 1/2 times the state's white unemployment rate, among the biggest black-white gaps in the nation.
Only in education levels did blacks in Minnesota do better than blacks nationwide. About 20 percent of blacks 25 and older had a bachelor's degree in Minnesota, compared with 16.8 percent nationwide.
An economic gulf between whites and people of color that is larger in Minnesota than in the rest of the country is not a new phenomenon.
In the 1990 census, for example, Minnesota ranked among the worst states in terms of income, poverty rates and unemployment for blacks, Asians and American Indians, while whites in the state were doing pretty well compared with whites nationwide.
In some cases, the gap between whites and people of color seems to be growing.
For example, 1990 and 2000 census data showed median household income for blacks was about 60 percent of median white household income. In the 2005-07 survey data, the black median household income fell to 50 percent of the white median household income.
The median household income for Hispanics in the state was 81 percent of the median white household income in the 1990 census. It fell to 74 percent in the 2000 census and to 68 percent in the 2005-07 survey.
Minnesota median Asian household income, however, rose from 72 percent of the white median income in the 1990 census to 94 percent in 2000 to 105 percent in the latest data.
American Indian households also made progress, with median incomes rising from 49 percent of white median incomes in 1990 to 59 percent in 2000 to about 60 percent in 2005-07.
Orfield said that as the economy worsens, the gap between whites and minorities might grow as well.
"I think low-income minority families, they are the last in and the first out in this economy," he said.
Richard Chin can be reached at 651-228-5560
Click above for a link to this story. There is an interesting graph that show's the racial gap.
How can you even give ink to this, when you just posted that crap from the Club For Growth's Blog?
Everything that is needed to turn around these issues that minorities face are opposed by the Republicans.
Get your head screwed on straight Bob.
Are you for helping the disenfranchised and poor? Or are for political rhetoric that actually only helps those at the top?
You can cut taxes to the bone, or you can address some of these problems.
One that seems to be confusing is that in our state blacks have a higher poverty and unemployment rate, yet also a higher rate of college education.
Go to your conservative site and see what they say to address this. More tax cuts will help them, huh?
Eric
Eric, you know I take request for topics.
This was a request like every other post I put up today.
Right, Left, Middle of the road...
Send me your request for topics to
A_Democracy@yahoo.com
Show us the stats Eric where blacks have a higher rate of education than whites ?
When you do, show us the success rate amongst them.
Fact is, very few of them ever amount to anyhing other than fast food employees.
I suppose your solution Eric wavers along party lines drawn by Democrats that just want to spend,spend,spend !
By the way, the minority demographics have changed so much and I dougbht blacks are still considered the minority.
In my view, if blacks in Minnesota are lagging, it's only because so many of them come here for the welfare and it's hard not for them to be a statistical casualty of some irrelevant survey.
It's a dog eat dog / first come first serve world out there not to mention the fact that our government wants to keep the blacks down.
More power to them though.
Big bosss man.
No its called be a father-stay in the home and get off your ass and get a job.Black,white,green or purple.We have a black president and its time to acknowledge that its a tough world out there but if you put your mind to it you are what you make of yourself.
I'm so sick and tired of people making excuses.
John
But I was so abused when I was a youngster.
Friend of this Blog DFL Preceint Caucus
http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/messages/topic/6wjpoLjMsrpVViacaoOyrO
We thought Nancy Lazaryan was one of your team members?
Last Post?http://www.dailypaul.com/node/51741
Caucuses Tuesday! Thank you 9:14 for the public service message.
I better go and make an appearance on behalf of the majority of readers here. :-)
See yeah all at the caucuses!
Nancy, told me she was to busy to particiapte. No sense in having her name on the Team if she isn't going to be part of the Town Hall.
Anytime she wants to get involved here all she has to do is HOLLER, and I will sign her on!
There is invitation out there to A Democracy posters Jeff, Eric and Chuck too. Anytime they want to jump on board they can.
The truth of what Big boss man says is hurtful but true. Isn't it ?
Eric
What would be interesting to find is the percentage of middle class African American's living in the Central cities compared to other cities of our size.
I have always had a feeling (just by observation) that we have a lower percentage of African American's in the positions that hirer low skill workers and that lack of people in the position to hirer low skill workers has the biggest impact on our poverty rates.
The people that have the biggest impact on hiring decisions are often lower to middle management.
It is getting your foot in the door that makes the difference for success or failure most often. Particularly for young men or teens getting that first job and some support in holding it, mentoring, teaching has a huge impact in one's future.
So, for an impact on poverty rates in the long term one manager of a grocery store has a bigger impact on how many young people get hired and if they are of color or not than a dozen doctors or lawyers.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Hey "Big Bossman"
If you had bothered to read the article you would probably know that Eric was referring to this section of the article:
"Only in education levels did blacks in Minnesota do better than blacks nationwide. About 20 percent of blacks 25 and older had a bachelor's degree in Minnesota, compared with 16.8 percent nationwide."
And now Big Bossman, I'd like to know if you have ever heard the phrase/term: "covert institutional racism"?
I know you probably haven't so I will give you a little hint about its definition. The definition of the phrase is different than the one I would use to describe you: "overt individual racism"!
3:11 - that ties into the thought I was having last night.
Think about the first job you had at 14-18. What was the educational back ground of the person that hired you?
My first job was as a dishwasher and the first person that hired me was a cook. I doubt Big Al had a degree. He was white and the dishwashers and buss boys that he hired were white. I have no idea if he was racist or not but those were the young kids he hired.
Stop by an SA or Holliday gas station in the hood and see how often the manager is white. How about the local Dominos or Pizza Hut, driving jobs are high status jobs for young guys compared to other first time jobs. Those are the people that are hiring our 16-18 year old first time workers. Those are the people that are determining which kid looks "OK" to give the till to.
It might explain how we can have a higher than average degree rate for African American and at the same time have higher poverty rates. If the only way you can get a job as an African American in Minnesota is if you have a 4 year degree then the gap becomes huge.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Repke,
Eric said :
" One that seems to be confusing is that in our state blacks seem to have a higher rate of poverty and unemployment rate, yet also a higher rate of college education " .
Here he is comparing blacks to whites.
What about my 10:31 post is racist / overtly ?
Everything in my 10:31 posting is true and you know it.
Big boss man
Actually everything that you said in your 10:31 post is so stupid it would be hard to even call it racist. You'd have to move up a notch in the intelligence area to be racist.
Eric's point was that it was interesting that we had a high level of successful African Americans (completing 4 year degrees) and also a high poverty rate. My suggestion was that it may be that our issue is a lack of lower level management that actually do the hiring of lower skill workers that increase the poverty rates.
There may very well be both a path to affluence available with a 4 year degree and a road block to getting out of poverty at the same time.
Get it? Fewer road blocks for the well educated African Americans and huge road blocks for those with out degrees.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Repke,
Lower level management in a fast food joint ?
I suppose you would expect a high level CEO on sight at burger king
doing the hiring ?
These mostly blacks and minoritys seek out this kind of work.
Either because they lack a high school diploma , or their just plain lazy.
Or their to busy hanging out on the block and at somebody elses crib.
The only thing on their minds ( the lazy and un educated ones ) are video games and screwing hoes. Oh, and wanting to save enough dough for a fine set of threads ( baggy pants ) and wheels for their pimp ride.
What,did Eric get sick and call you to speak for him ?
Road blocks to getting out of poverty ?
Your lower management excuse for why blacks cannot move up is a sad excuse and a crutch.
Bill Cosby seems to think the opposite, just ask Eric, he knows what Bill is talking about.
Obama the mesiah, even thinks as Bill does.
Move on Repke.
Big boss man
The only road blocks out there for any race is their self.
Chuck what ever happened to the day people take responsibility for who they are?
Typical democrats that depend on government for everything then blames anything to make an excuse.If people would stand up and take care of their self and their families we wouldn't need government for anything other then Roads,police,fire and so on.But the more and more power democrats have the bigger they get and the less freedom and responsibility we have.
Socialism=Communism without the gun
Brian
wow Brian,
Nothing that I suggested had anything to do with the government doing anything. My point was in other larger metropolitan areas like Chicago or Atlanta, you more than likely have a larger African American middle class and therefore have more people in the position to hirer young workers.
Part of our problem here is that we are still have a much higher white population than a typical metro area and therefore have a smaller percentage of people of color that do the hiring.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck you're right on the point of bigger cities, or cities with higher African American populations have much bigger middle classes. Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, Memphis and the Triangle in North Carolina.
Its an interesting theory that I never entertained. Another one is that Minnesota, especially St Paul is very much about who you know or who you are related to. I thought it was only so in politics but, the legal field, non-profits, and small businesses are the same way.
I haven't posted because its just not worth talking to or wit the Brians and other bigots of the world. They have no control over me and it drives them crazy. They're losing on their way out.
Anyway, your point is way over their confused heads. It makes sense. I've looked for work before and after college and there is a huge difference in the doors that you can open.
Eric
Chuck you're right on the point of bigger cities, or cities with higher African American populations have much bigger middle classes. Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, New York, Los Angeles, Memphis and the Triangle in North Carolina.
Its an interesting theory that I never entertained. Another one is that Minnesota, especially St Paul is very much about who you know or who you are related to. I thought it was only so in politics but, the legal field, non-profits, and small businesses are the same way.
I haven't posted because its just not worth talking to or wit the Brians and other bigots of the world. They have no control over me and it drives them crazy. They're losing on their way out.
Anyway, your point is way over their confused heads. It makes sense. I've looked for work before and after college and there is a huge difference in the doors that you can open.
Eric
Brian,
Dumb bumper stick shit like that, will keep you dumb.
Socialism and Communism are two different structures. Socialism has worked- right here in America. One teeny example- FDIC.
Pick up book and drop the sheets.
Eric
Eric relax.Brian made some good points.Your anger is typical thug life bullshit.You sometimes can have educated thoughts and then also act like a brother on the street.What is it?
You dumb fucks should do your math.ATTENTION ALL DUMB FUCKS we have a black president!The leader of the free world.White America elected him Chuck.Not black.So lets spin this, in America you can become a President but not a manager of McDonalds.Give it up.You are who you are.Black, white,yellow.Get off the cross somebody else needs it.
Brian didn't say one thing racist but Eric(a black man)was the first to yell the word.You my friend are the racist.Everything someone says or does that opposes your view you say racist.Your black right?Do you consider yourself successful?Then shut the fuck up.You made the right decisions.Well not all-you're a democrat.
Jim
FDIC deposit insurance not a sure thing
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
By: Radhika Miller
Workers stand to lose as banks continue to topple
We hear the parting words from television commercials and radio advertisements: "Member FDIC Insured." The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has been insuring our money, our livelihood, up to $100,000. This was supposed to make working-class people feel safe and comfortable. But when a series of huge banks collapsed, falling like dominos one after the other, individual financial safety was put in serious jeopardy.
With the passage of the Wall Street bailout legislation, the rules for the FDIC have changed. The sum per bank deposit guaranteed by the FDIC has been temporarily raised to $250,000. The FDIC is also allowed to borrow from the Treasury to cover losses that might occur as a result of the new, higher insurance limit.
The FDIC, however, currently has enough in its reserve fund to cover only 1 percent of insured deposits. As of September 2008, the Deposit Insurance Fund had a balance of $45 billion, which is about $10 billion less than the amount projected in March 2008 for the end of the year. If there is an all-out run on the banks and everyone decides to try to collect their money, millions of workers might not be able to recover any of their money, let alone the up to $250,000 now guaranteed by the FDIC.
A federal corporation
The FDIC is a federal corporation that provides deposit insurance for member banks. It emerged as an institution with passage of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. The concept was motivated by the bank panics of 1930-1933, during which thousands of banks failed. The newly established FDIC paid a bank’s depositors roughly 85 percent of their deposits in the event of failure, up to a maximum of $2,500 per depositor.
The FDIC’s mandate covers both insolvent and illiquid banks. Insolvent banks are those whose liabilities (including deposits) exceed their assets (such as holdings of government securities and home and commercial mortgages); illiquid banks are those whose assets cannot be readily converted into cash. Illiquid banks may often be insolvent if no market exists for some of their assets.
When banks become troubled, the FDIC usually intervenes through one of two methods: The purchase and assumption method, or P&A, in which an open bank assumes all the liabilities (deposits) of the failed bank and purchases some or all of the failed bank’s assets (loans); or the payoff method, in which the FDIC pays the insured depositors and liquidates the bank’s assets to recoup at least part of its outlays. The payoff method, which requires the FDIC to provide large sums of money to cover deposit losses, is only used when no bank is willing to participate in a P&A rescue.
The ultimate promise of the FDIC is that depositors will not lose—if a bank fails, the FDIC, sponsored by the government but funded by premiums paid in by its member banks, will guarantee that a solvent bank will assume their deposits or the FDIC itself will compensate them for any deposit losses, now capped at $250,000.
The truth is that the FDIC does not have the reserves to finance this promise.
Too big to let fail
The FDIC has been able to operate with reserves amounting to only 1 percent of the insured deposits because it has never had to compensate for deposit losses exceeding that amount at one time. Essentially, the FDIC works within the same concept of "risk management" and speculation that plagues the financial markets, betting that large numbers of people will not attempt to withdraw their money from the banks all at once.
As long as it has to cover only occasional, individual bank failures, the FDIC is capable of fulfilling its mission statement. However, if a large number of banks fail over a relatively short period of time, the FDIC, too, will likely fail. Stanford Financial analyst Jaret Seiberg predicts more than 100 banks nationwide will fail next year.
The FDIC has predicted that at the end of 2008, insured deposits will total $4.4 trillion. The FDIC has only $45 billion in its Deposit Insurance Fund. Workers could face a gargantuan loss if large number of additional banks was to go under and the Treasury did not come to the rescue.
But the FDIC knows that the government cannot allow the FDIC-insured banking system to fail. If the large banks failed, without other banks willing to assume insured liabilities, the FDIC would have to pay all depositors the insured amount, which it is incapable of doing. Trillions of dollars could disappear into thin air.
The effects would ripple through the money and credit markets throughout the world. Deposits carefully recorded in computers and balance sheets would vanish. Workers’ life savings would evaporate, corporations depending on cash flow would fold, and the capitalist economy, beholden to the ability and motive of turning a profit, would collapse.
Just like the government has bailed out a number of major financial players, the FDIC, too, would likely be rescued. From the perspective of the capitalist class, this would be a simple matter of necessity to avoid even more instability in an already stormy economy. Following the multi-billion-dollar Wall Street bailout, financing such a rescue would likely require intervention by the Federal Reserve, which would essentially print more money so that the FDIC’s financial obligations could be covered.
The result would be a depreciation of the dollar and an inflationary pressure on prices. Essentially, workers might recover every single one of their insured deposit dollars, yet each dollar would purchase less than it did before as a direct consequence of the inflationary effects of the Fed intervention. The Fed can print money, but it cannot create value.
This Catch-22 reveals the limitations of the FDIC system in the face of a major crisis of the capitalist system. There is no mechanism that can be put in place to eliminate the devastating consequences of the bust phase of the capitalist cycle of production. Even a government-backed FDIC bailout will not preserve the value of workers’ deposits. Under the profit system, nothing can provide workers the necessary guarantees against the devastating effects of a capitalist crisis.
Eric relax.Brian made some good points.Your anger is typical thug life bullshit.You sometimes can have educated thoughts and then also act like a brother on the street.What is it?
I have some educated 'thoughts' but act like a 'brother on the street?'
Schools in.
What makes that a racist statement? You take the positive and attribute it to a random and take the stereotype and assign it as the constant. A constant for me? No, a constant for a race. In your eyes, I accidentally run across a worthy thought. How nice of you for the compliment (<---dripping with sarcasm)
You dumb fucks should do your math.ATTENTION ALL DUMB FUCKS we have a black president!The leader of the free world.White America elected him Chuck.Not black.So lets spin this, in America you can become a President but not a manager of McDonalds.Give it up.You are who you are.Black, white,yellow.Get off the cross somebody else needs it.
Help me out here. Is the above an example of you lashing out in 'thug life anger' or, is it one of your educated thoughts?
I don't discuss race on this site in any meaningful way so, I'm not sure who you're (not 'your') addressing.
Brian didn't say one thing racist but Eric(a black man)was the first to yell the word.You my friend are the racist.Everything someone says or does that opposes your view you say racist.Your black right?Do you consider yourself successful?Then shut the fuck up.You made the right decisions.Well not all-you're a democrat. Jim
Agreeing or disagreeing with me does not make one racist or not. Insulting me doesn't make one racist. I don't agree with jack-shit Bob writes about but, I don't think he's racist. Politically I disagree with Pawlenty yet, I know him not to be a racist.
If you freely express bigoted views, or act in a manner that is disparaging or disadvantaging toward a group or a race, then you are a racist individual.
Eric
FDIC looks like a good program Eric.
Is it racist to call a white guy trailer trash if he acts like one.Is it a stereotype-yes.But is it grouping the whole class of whites as shit bags-no!
So calling a black guy a thug is not racist.Blacks call eachother thugs all the time.Barack is not a Thug.He's an average human that acts socially acceptable.You Eric are smart but can act like a thug when you lower yourself to threats.
Jim
I agree with Jim.
Jeff Matiatos
Blacks call each other niger don't they Eric ?
Or do they say this only in the hood ?
It's not ok if a white person calls a black niger. Why is that ?
Please folks, do not use the N word here.
If you freely express bigoted views, or act in a manner that is disparaging or disadvantaging toward a group or a race, then you are a racist individual.
Eric
My response;
I agree 100% Eric.
The problem I struggle with is getting a soft closet racist to understand they are a racist. Believe it or not, some folks do not even understand they are a racist. I have been able to council a number of white folks to the understanding they had racist views that were based on very poor foundations.
Many whites acknowledge they are racist to some degree when in the company of friends and family, but when in public they deny it. That's Minnesota for you. At least down south they let you know they are ignorant.
Folks who socialize with other races easily identify soft bigotry readily. It isn't something that can be hidden from anyone who has ever had to endure racism personally. I learned years ago I had some bigoted issues I had to work through, and I dealt with that. I encourage other whites to look in the mirror.
Like I said in an earlier statement,
One test for racism is,
If you are offended when you see a mixed race couple. Look in the mirror, you are a racist. We are not animals in a selective breeding process. If you can't look at someone beyond their skin color you have a problem.
I know many of you will not get this, and you will be offended by this statement. You may not ever overcome your FEARS and socialize with other races to learn that we are all brothers and sisters.
There is no easy answer for this subject. I'm afraid all you bigots are just going to have to die off with time. Fortunately, as generations go by we will see less and less racism.
Bob you are talking all racists right?Black,white,asian?Blacks are some of the biggest racist.But I do believe you are right that racism needs do go away.But electing Barack was a great step closer and whites did vote him in.It is also true that blacks came out in record numbers to support a black man.Where were they when a white man like Gore or Kerry ran?Could this be seen as racism?
Jim
I agree Jim.
Good point Jim.I never looked at it like that.
John
Does anyone here do any research on anything?
Instead debating the definition of racist and wasting my time on the mindset here, I'll just show you're wrong with something that's not debatable. The numbers.
Jim is quite aware of these numbers as he tried to say this right after the election and I researched the numbers and posted them. He is relying on the fact that most here will be anxious to get behind the idea, rather than seek the truth. And, he is correct.
Obama did not earn the support of blacks until he won some primaries.
Hillary Clinton and John Edwards both had more black support when the campaign started. Time magazine and USA Today worte long peices trying to figure out why Obama was not gettign black support (that's the racist thing. Assuming that he'll get the black vote automatically just because he's black. Its also insulting).
If that was the case, then Al Sharpton would have done better, Carol Mosley Braun would have done better in 2004 and Jesse Jackson would have done better in 1984 and 1988. Oh, Alan Keyes would have done a lot better if it was just about race.
Blacks vote 90% for Democratic Presidents anyway.
Obama increased that by 7%.
Not racist at all- but you keep trying, I'm sure you'll find something. Oh, whites also increased their support by 7% over for Obama over Kerry. Were they all racists too?
Hispanics were the winner here. They went for Obama by more than 20% over Bush just four years earlier. I guess you'll tell us that they were racist too.
Blacks voted 90% for Kerry, Gore and Dukakis.
94% for LBJ and 92% for Mondale.
Clinton only garnered 83% and 84% respectively. Last I checked all of those were white guys.
Eric
Tom, I will offer you a decent reply without the political name calling bullshit.
I agree with 100% of what Bill Cosby is saying and has been saying for at least 25 years in one way or another.
Cosby is also a big Democratic supporter, especially Barack Obama
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17329.html
Cosby pushes for individual responsibility. The government's purpose is to 'look out' for the collective. Being responsible doesn't mean that having help from the government will mess you up.
For example, after Vietnam, my father had it tough getting work at first. Veteran were not revered and black veterans who didn't know the right people were even more so. He made a hard decision to take help from the government while he finished some training and my mother went back to school. He got a part time job working in a car wash and my mother cleaned an office. They were being responsible, but were also making use of government programs for people who are in need. Eventually he got an education and became a member of the Chicago Fire Department with many accommodations. My mother became a teacher, then a college professor and private consultant. Both were responsible and Democrats.
Democrats, while are not above being typical politicians by using people for votes, offer programs that provide opportunities to people who are poor or live in urban areas. That alone would include a lot of black.
Republicans preach the individual responsibility part and definitely the faith issues are important to blacks but, they not only do not offer a tangible plan to the poor, they campaign against them. To many blacks, the very effective Southern Strategy of the 1960's is what the Republicans are about. When was the last time getting as many people an opportunity to go to college without money being an option came out of a Republican mouth? What does a person struggling to pay bills with an hourly wage job, care about capital gains tax?
Anyway, we can go back and forth on this with examples. If I remember correctly, you grew up on the East Side in a subsidized apartment Tom. You grew up around poor and working class people. Were your parents bitching about the tax rate?
For the most part, public schools are shitty in urban areas. Also, some of the best schools in the nation are from urban areas. While you point at Democrats because of the problem, what is it the Republicans are offering? Taking 7 or 8 percent of the student out through a voucher program? That's not an answer to the problem. I suggest dismantling the funding system through property taxes. Its inadvertently discriminatory and leads to ever rising costs.
I'll sum it up:
1. Individual responsibility is not exclusive from a pro-active Government which Democrats support.
2. Until Republicans make a real play for the vote, it will stay with the Democrats for the near future.
3. Who care what the extremists on the left say? You, the right, have your own extremists to deal with like David Duke going after the new RNC chair.
Actually, its the dichotomy of number 3 that may be the biggest obstacle. A party that has an unapologetic Racist and Klan member like Duke, has a chair like Steele. Steele beat out a couple of guys that seem closer to Duke than Steele.
Eric
Eric, you make some valid points, but there are holes in your overall argument.
I'll address them this evening, after work but I have to take a minute to let you know that David Duke has been soundly, and unequivocally rejected by the GOP, and by me.
You have to love the Switee and GOP claim that welfare leads to the destruction of the family.
Read this slow so it sinks into your head.
It has been the conservatives and Republicans that have consciously put restrictions on welfare recipients that keeps fathers out of the household.
Republicans hate the poor and particularly hate anyone that has to take general assistance. It has been them that have pushed for policies that say the woman MUST be alone in order to get assistance. They create the policies that make sure that the woman has to kick her partner out of the house if she is going to get an assistance check.
That kind of "welfare" is evil, anyone who takes "welfare" is beneath contempt.
But... as a non W2 worker I get to deduct from my income and not pay any taxes at all on the lease payments on my 2008 Mustang Convertible. Not to mention those trips that I have to take for training that are work related... air, meals, hotel... tax deductible... That "welfare" is a good thing.
And of course any increase in wealth that I have made in the stock market that is reinvested is non-taxable in the current year, as is any capital gains that are reinvested in two years. That "welfare" is a good thing.
You got to love the GOP blood suckers.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
While Eric likes to make it look like taking the welfare money works, there are just as many stories where it doesn't.
I know somweonw who was on welfare and living in Section 8. She got a grant to go to school and the money could only be used for tuition. If it was not used for that, then it was to be returned. Well when welfare found out about it they considered it cash in her pocket and cut her off welfare. Luckily she had the smarts and family support to fight and get the situation turned around in her favor. She has now worked a full time job for over 20 years and is getting ready to retire and collect a pension. A large number of the undercalss don't have the smarts of the family network to do this so they take what's given to them. She also owned a house and paid property taxes for many years.
I agree with Swiftee.....this is the kind of success that the DFL can't stand. They lose control over you and your vote. Keep telling it like it is Swiftee.
"And of course any increase in wealth that I have made in the stock market that is reinvested is non-taxable in the current year, as is any capital gains that are reinvested in two years. That "welfare" is a good thing."
Come on Repke, stop talking shit. Is it really a capital gain because someone takes an investment and puts it into different kind of investment? Sounds to me like you'd like to stop or discourage investments. The investments you want to discourage is the money that provides real jobs to people.....not some non profit blood sucker scam like you're operating.
While Eric likes to make it look like taking the welfare money works, there are just as many stories where it doesn't.
It does work. That wasn't my point and I hope Tom got the point. The point is you can be responsible and still believe in the Democratic supported programs.
There are not 'as many stories' where it doesn't work. At least not true stories. Most people that get on welfare are off it within 5 years.
If you have any facts that go beyond what you see or hear from a friend of a brother's girlfriend's cousin, I'm all ears.
One thing if you read my writings enough, is that I'm usually pretty correct on the numbers. I spin the subjective, for instance, politics and government's role. Its how I set up the opposition.
So, anonymous, do you want the numbers on welfare recipients or are you just popping in to give a little rah rah for the stupid?
I suggest you let Tom, Chuck and myself work this into a real discussion.
Eric
Eric, take a minute to check out what 'sauce is talking about...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHvNddalwUY
Repke, I'm on my way out the door, so I'll mock you (once again) for the utter dim-wit you are later, but in the mean time, please feel free to fuck yourself, dolt.
The hell with being nice.
6:29
WTF? So, welfare is the only thing that keeps blacks with democrats? Did you read anything Chuck wrote?
You think middle class people don't appreciate pell grants and subsidized student loans as well as subsidized institutions of higher learning? Its high on the list of upward mobility which is what all people want for their children.
Forget that. Look up Southern Strategy and you'll get the beginning of the end of the black vote being split between the two parties.
Some of the republicans were supportive but, their official stance was against, the Civil Rights Act, against the Voting Rights Act, against Desegregation, against Equal Pay, against Affirmative Action, against Public Schools equal funding, against Minimum Wage increases, against Low income workers Health Insurance programs, against Unions (which was second to military in accepting and paying blacks a comparable wage), against School Nutrition Programs, and other pieces of legislation that are easily presented as being against the interest of blacks (as well as other groups of poor, working or middle class voters).
Voters who believe government should help those that need it, will vote Democrat. That is not the Republican philosophy.
We don't destroy good programs because of a few cheats or abusers of the program. Good government goes after the cheats and and abusers.
Eric
Well, the Mrs. isn't ready, so I'll take a couple of minutes to polish my boot tips on Repke's sphincter.
Check it out.
"Republicans hate the poor and particularly hate anyone that has to take general assistance. It has been them that have pushed for policies that say the woman MUST be alone in order to get assistance."
First off, fuck you Repke.
OK, now that's out of the way let me tell you that if a man and a woman decide to have unprotected sex and a child is conceived that they really didn't want, they have fucked up *huge*...as I taught my kids, it's a fuck up that will immediately change your life forever, so you had better be reeeeal careful what you do.
Now, if that fuck up happens to be the latest in a long string of fuck ups, the best thing to do is to put that child up for adoption...lots of people out here just waiting.
But if you are new to fucking up and choose to do the right thing by your kid, you are in for a real hard time, but I applaud you.
You'll need to get a job to support that kid. You may or may not have to postpone school plans...depends on whether you can support the kid and fit school into your schedule....in that order.
If you're ambitious, your fuck up will probably add at least five years to any successful plans you might have had before you fucked up. But you can make it; lots of people have.
If you're a woman that has chosen to have unprotected sex with a serial fuck up that skips town when you show up with the dead rabbit, you're a bigger fuck up than he is. You should give that child to someone that on care for it and work on your issues.
But if you choose to keep that child, you are in for a much worse time of it than if you had at least enough good judgement to fuck up with a decent guy.
You can probably plan on living dirt poor for at least five years while you dig yourself, and your child out of the hole you've dug.
I'll support you and your kid while you get your fucked up life together, but it's going to come with strings.
You're going to have to either work, or go to school. You've got to have a plan to prepare for the time when I won't be paying to support you and your kid. You can't go out and party, you have work to do.
And, if things are working correctly, you won't want to waste any time getting your shit together because it's going to be embarrassing.
Unless you live in a neighborhood where everyone is a fuck up, people are going to remind you that what you've done isn't good.
If you do live in a neighborhood where everyone is a fuck up, you must be in a Democrat district....move.
We don't hate you because you're poor, don't listen to those stinking liberals....they have a vested interest in keeping you fat, drunk and stupid enough to keep voting for them.
We hate poverty. And you're contributing to it...make sure it's temporary.
We especially hate poverty when it is the result of serial fuck ups being encouraged to continue to fuck up by some suck assed lefty that wouldn't give you one thin dime if they had to take it out of their own pockets.
Hell, they don't even want you to realize that you have fucked up!
Fucking up is something we all do. What you need to learn, and live, is that it is not the right way to go through life. Learn from your mistakes, and improve.
"Voters who believe government should help those that need it, will vote Democrat. That is not the Republican philosophy."
Well Eric, you led up to that statement with a pile of unmitigated bullshit, but you're right...kind of.
Conservatives don't believe that anyone, unless they are mentally impaired, is less capable than anyone else to run their own lives.
We certainly don't believe that the color of someone's skin automatically entitles them to societies protection.
Let me tell you a story that illustrates my point perfectly.
When Tim Pawlenty confronted his first budget deficit, he wisely cut spending.
OF course the Democrats went batshit crazy, and fanned out across the state to whip up their victim platoons.
I went to a "town hall meeting" at a St. Paul rec. center that was called by a bag of assholes that included Sandy Pappas, Carlos Mariani, and Cy Thao. Repke's butt buddy, Bucky Thune was in the audience as well.
I listened to an hour of the biggest pile of "poor you" that I've ever heard, I expected nothing less, but when a gal of about 21 years old stood up and gave an incredibly articulate speech about how her life was going to be ruined if the government couldn't provide her with programs to keep her going, I couldn't take it any more.
The gal happened to be black, but the message she was sending sould have offended me coming out of such an obviously intelligent young girl of any color.
I stood up and addressed the (largely black crowd) in general and the girl in particular. I told her that it hurt to watch such a smart girl tell her neighbors that she was incapable of becoming a success unless the government held her hand.
I told her that if, excepting the topic, in the three minute speech she had just given, she had impressed a total stranger with her intelligence, there was no reason she should feel afraid of going out there with every expectation that others would see her potential too.
Pappas at that point tried to silence me, but I told her politely to STFU until I had had my say.
My message for every one in that room was that they should never come to believe that they were nothing more than the sum total of the government programs they received. I told them I believed in their worth.
And when I was done, the blacks in the audience sat there like they couldn't believe that anyone would just come out and "say it", while a pack of 60 year old has been hippies from MAcAllister Groveland boo'd and hissed at me.
I almost threw up.
You want to tell people they are too stupid, or too incompetent to be successful through their own efforts, Eric?
Be my guest.
I love you too Swiftie...
I say the GOP hates the poor and then Swiftie does his best to show that he (and they) hate the poor.
I truely believe that you do think that it is important for the poor to be punished if they make mistakes and that having children is a punishment from God that people should have to suffer for.
Did you ever get laid before you got maried Swittee?
No, I wonder if you have ever gotten laid.
All I can say swiftie is that there are some of us that don't believe that the world has to be a miserable place to live and those children of the poor should have a fair chance in life. Who your parents were still is the bigest factor determining wealth and success in this country...
...and 6:33 - you tell me why making a million dollars profit shouldn't be taxed when making $7.50 an hour at Burger King is.
It is welfare for the rich.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Why is it the inner democratic ran citys have the highest rate of poverty?Why is it that the city targets households with code enforcement that have behavior problems.Why is it that the inner city democrats want these folks out of their citys?Why is it the inner city schools that are failing?
African Americans have been looking towards the democrats for leadership the last 40 years Chuck.They're communities are worse now then they were 40 years ago.Good job Repke,you might be able to sell that shit to them but its not working for me!
I'm a Republican and hate poverty.I want it to disappear and become better.I just think the way were doing it is wrong and not working.
If a young lady with 1 kid is getting a combined total of 1,000 a month for housing and food I'd be willing to give her 1,200 with goals.Whats that?A job and a promise to provide for yourself and your child in 5 years.How?A portion of the 1,200 goes to child care while you are at work.You might say how is she going to get a job?Give employers benefits to hire her.This will help the child see that mommy works to pay the bills and will leave the child with a better vision of reality.The money left over from the child care and her paycheck will go for rent,food and clothes.And if mommy can't understand how to be a mommy I'm even willing to put her in a parenting school also.
See Chuck I want people to succeed.Not to sit in their shit and wait for your buddies to rescue them.The only person that can help is the person themself.Government should be of assistance not an obstacle.We the people should demand results from programs and when they don't work more than not,we need to change them.Were not bad guys,we want change!
Chuck who benefits most from poverty?The Republicans sure don't.
If poverty was wiped out it would be a bad thing for the democrats and their big government programs.
Eric obviously the system isn't perfect and if Barack can change Washington we as the people can change poverty.It helped your family but often it fails.What are some changes you'd make?
And one last thing quit saying us republicans don't care because you sound stupid wee man.
Jim
Any time you take money Chcuk, the guy that gives it you has a hook into you and they control you. Do you relaly want the Government having this control over people. What has the Government done is your life time that worked out OK?
Jim, as Christ said there will always be the poor. The difference it that the Republicans believe that you stop people from being poor by starving them. They think that somehow it is a choice. That people choose to be in that situation and because of that they need to be punished. Republicans think that if only wealthy people have good schools then all people will choose to be wealthy.
Democrats believe that children near a fair start in life. They believe if we are going to keep our democracy we need to create opportunities for all people to be successful. They think that most children don't get to choose who their parents were and consequently shouldn't be punished for it.
Jim, think for one minute and answer your own question... why are there so many poor in the cities? There are poor in the cities because that is where there are the most opportunities to not starve to death. There are more social programs available than in small towns and suburbs. There is more affordable housing, there are more food banks and there are more people who are willing to assist them.
Oh and you are so wrong about who benefits from poverty. Think about it. For the last 40 years since Nixon was elected in 1968 the GOP has held the presidency for 28 years and the Dems for 12 and the two Dems that were elected were both southerners and considered to be conservative Dems. Remember Clinton put the 5 year cap on Welfare, supported big business in being Free trade against the AFL-CIO.
What we have seen in the 40 years of conservatism in the US has been an almost total destruction of the labor movement and an erosion of the middle class. Who benefits from that? business owners, share owners and the fat cats on wall street.
The more unemployed there are the more willing someone is to work for less. The more profit for the wealthy.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
"What we have seen in the 40 years of conservatism in the US has been an almost total destruction of the labor movement and an erosion of the middle class."
The unions destroyed the labor movement. We see the proof of that every time a pack of union thugs picket in front of a company that is caving in under the weight of the ludicrous work and compensation rules it has to work with.
Why are Japanese car companies making cars in the US not going under?
No stinking union bosses to haul around.
"What we have seen in the 40 years of conservatism in the US has been an almost total destruction of the labor movement and an erosion of the middle class."
The unions destroyed the labor movement. We see the proof of that every time a pack of union thugs picket in front of a company that is caving in under the weight of the ludicrous work and compensation rules it has to work with.
Why are Japanese car companies making cars in the US not going under?
No stinking union bosses to haul around.
Just off of the wire...
As Nissan prepares for what it expects will be its first annual loss in nine years, the Japanese automaker discloses plans to cut 20,000 jobs worldwide. The company says that 12,000 of the job cuts will be in Japan -- the rest will be overseas.
- nice to know that facts have never stood in Swiftees way of making a stupid arguement.
- and this is beyond the fact that Japanese auto makers don't have to pay thier workers in Japan health insurance benefits because they have NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE. Which puts them in a huge competitive advantage.
Sorry Swiftee, the facts are just not your friends.
JMONTOMEPPOF
Chuck Repke
Chuck first find me one place where I said punish the kids.These kids are doomed under the current welfare system.Like Barack said its a tired old argument that we need to put to bed.We need change.
Second real policy comes from the house and senate and from the last time I checked its been pretty much controlled by you party for the last 40 years.Sorry bout it!
Third you think about it-High poverty in the inner citys and Democrats are getting elected like hot cakes time and time again.Chuck Minnesotas Social programs why the poor from Indiana,Illinois and Ohio come here in droves?
Fifth we'll see what Barack and the Democratic house and Senate do.
Your old Chuck and clueless.Times have changed me boy!Time to change your diaper-GLORIA Chuck needs a changing and maybe a spanking too.
Jim
So lets give the auto makers more money to bail them out.From what Chuck is saying Japans workforce is being let go because of hard times.Actually lets give them money and regulate the piss out of them so we can make a bad investment really bad!
How do you expect are automakers to stay in business paying health,retirement and high wagees if Japan can't Einstein Repke?
Jim
The problem with your story is that A) Japanese car manufacturers are not asking for bail outs
Because
B) They run their businesses competently.
"As Nissan prepares for what it expects will be its first annual loss in nine years"
How long has it been since Chrysler had a profitable year, dickhead?
Nissan lost money because no one bought any cars last year.
That's why, in the face of a market that has dried up for the time being, they will lay workers off. That way, they ensure they have the wherewithall to make cars when people start buying them.
Contrast that with a company that has a pack of union monkeys howling around it's ears, pulling the walls in on everyone until all that remains is ashes.
There's nothing wrong with my powers of observation Repke, the facts mock lefty assholes such as yourself in a way I could never aspire to match.
Who's the biggest employer in the US Repke?Yep the good old government.All businesses are cutting their workforce but Uncle Sam is doing so good he'll increase his workforce and even give pay raises next year.Yeah!
Since their doing so good Swiftee how bout we let them run health care also.They've done such a wonderful job with Social Security its almost bankrupt.Give em 10 years with health care and they'll fuck that up to.
Sad thing is Repke Republicans know when their side is shit and needs to get back to its roots.You on the other hand don't know what shit smells like.
Jim
Swiftee is wrong and foul as ever.
Anyone who's studied business know that Japanese auto workers have lifetime jobs and national health care. Why the hell would they need a union? Their culture respects the workforce and take pride in long term strategic planning and do not turn on their employees during economic downturns.
------------------
Toyota asks Japanese workers to accept pay cut amid economic slump
CP - Thu Jan 08, 05:18 AM EST
By The Associated Press
TOKYO - Toyota Motor Corp. said Thursday it is negotiating with its workers in Japan to slash salaries as it stops production to adjust to slumping global demand.
Toyota spokeswoman Ririko Takeuchi said the size of the cut is still undecided. She said talks are under way after the company decided this week to idle production at all 12 of its Japan plants for 11 days over February and March - a stoppage of unprecedented scale for Toyota, Japan's top automaker.
Under Japanese law, companies must pay at least 60 per cent of the average regular wages during such stoppages, she said.
In a stunning reversal of its previously booming fortunes, Toyota projects that it will sink into its first yearly operating loss in 70 years for the fiscal year ending March 31. And fears are growing about the ripple-effects of the U.S. financial crisis to this nation's export-reliant auto industry, including parts-makers.
Toyota is shedding 3,000 temporary workers in Japan - about half its domestic temporary work force - by the end of March.
The job cuts have not affected the nearly 70,000 full-time Japanese staff, who like workers at major corporations here are generally protected with lifetime employment. Toyota employs 316,000 people globally.
"Protecting employment is of utmost importance for us," Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe told reporters last month. "But tough market conditions are likely to continue, and they could get worse."
Japanese automakers may be faring better than their U.S. counterparts General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC, which have been on the brink of collapse until securing a multibillion dollar government bailout.
But the plunge in global demand and the surging yen have hammered their earnings.
Toyota, the maker of the Corolla subcompact and Prius hybrid, saw its U.S. sales in December tumble 37 per cent on the year. It expects 50 billion yen ($555 million) in net profit for the fiscal year ending March 31, down from 1.7 trillion yen the previous year.
Even when they have to cut back on production, they find a way to pay their loyal employees. Not just the big three, even the fifth and sixth ranked automakers.
------
Japanese Government To Step In And Help Pay Idled Auto Workers
1/26/2009 12:41:44 PM
Thousands of Japanese car workers will soon draw part of their pay from the government under a scheme to prevent redundancies at companies hit by production cuts.
Mazda and Mitsubishi Motors, respectively Japan’s fifth and sixth biggest carmakers, have applied for the employment adjustment grants, according to industry officials, and others may follow soon.
The grants are available to struggling manufacturers of all types but the particularly sharp downturn in the car sector, combined with a recent expansion of the programme, has made carmakers eligible for large levels of support.
Mitsubishi, for example, plans to build passenger cars at its main plant in Okayama prefecture on just seven days next month. On the other 14 weekdays, the plant’s 3,000 full-time workers will stay at home but receive 85 per cent of their wages, half of which will be paid by the government.
There are Japanese Unions for autoworkers Swiftee.
http://www.jaw.or.jp/e/
Confederation of Japan Automobile Workers' Unions (JAW) was formed in 1972. It has a current membership of about 741,000, and serves as the confederated body for the labor unions of automobile manufacturers, parts makers, sales dealers, transportation companies, and other automobile related companies.
In 2008. GM spent an average of about $3,500 per car it built in the U.S. on labor costs, compared to Toyota Motor Corp.'s roughly $2,200. GM said last month it hopes to work with the UAW to lower costs to $2,500 per car, but that may not be enough to meet the Treasury's requirement.
Could this be Union Induced smarty pants?
Post a Comment
<< Home