Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you submit that blacks backing Obama is due to white racism. Thanks for the chuckle.
If you're laughing, you can only be doing so at you're own ignorance. It is quite obvious from your posts that reading comprehension is not your strong point. The "Southern Strategy" was crafted so as to appeal to white racism, this really is not a hard concept to understand.
When the black population begins to diversify their vote in the order of the white population, only then will there be real change for the better in the inner city communities.
Considering that the Republican party from Reagan on has been for giving tax breaks to the very rich at the expense of everyone else, while running up deficits beyond belief growing the federal government, in large part to increase exponentially the government's interference in our personal lives, what part of that is the black population (or the rest of us, for that matter) supposed to support??
I think in general, the black population has victimized itself by voting as a 90% block for the Democrat party, which effectively marginalizes their voice in the political arena. In this case, the black population is further marginalizing its influence by casting their votes in such a large majority to a candidate that shares the same skin color. Can you blame political opponents that essentially ignore their community? For that matter, Democrat politicians don't have to campaign vigorously in any district that is majority black either, because it has been displayed over the past 60+ years the black population will vote for a ham sandwich if it has a "D" in front of it.
When the black population begins to diversify their vote in the order of the white population, only then will there be real change for the better in the inner city communities.
Hey mike0421, I don't care what you think. Because obviously you aren't thinking about the present topic. You've just simply posted a completely unsubstantiated claim, it's nothing more than mere opinion, and therefore completely useless. As I've been trying to get across to the backwards thinkers on this thread--and by all means please insert yourself in that group--if you want to understand why it is that Barack Obama has the substantial support of black voters, understand what the "Southern Strategy" is. I don't know why this is so hard for some posters on this thread to comprehend.
Prior to the South Carolina primary, Hillary Clinton enjoyed the support of a majority of black voters. After that everything changed.
Considering that the Republican party from Reagan on has been for giving tax breaks to the very rich at the expense of everyone else, while running up deficits beyond belief growing the federal government, in large part to increase exponentially the government's interference in our personal lives, what part of that is the black population (or the rest of us, for that matter) supposed to support??
Care to provide a link for your information?
This is a popular canard the left loves to foist upon the general population during the perennial election cycle. It's a tried and true formula, and you have to give socialists credit for going back to 'Old Faithful' when it comes to good old fashioned class warfare.
The reality, however, differs from perception. In 1990, the wealthiest 1% of earners paid 25% of all federal income taxes, in 2005, it had risen to 39%.
You had mentioned Reagan and his tenure has benefitted 'wealthy' citizens. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.
I'd love to know how much more lower-middle class blacks, or for that matter, any lower or middle class person would like the 'evil rich' to pay in taxes. As it stands right now, the upper 50% of the earners pay 96% of all federal taxes. It is my assertion that Democrats would like that figure to rise by 4 more percentage points. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich.
To me, this remains the great chasm in American politics today. There is a significant corrolary to be drawn between class, race, and income. Someone had started a thread about the 'meaness' in this forum. This is the epicenter of that 'meaness'. It revolves around the government and its function in society, through measures of control, and thus taxation. In one corner, there are those, such as myself, who want the government out of our lives and out of our wallets, and in the other corner, there are those who want the government to provide for them, and intercede within the fair market. The stakes are pretty much the same, and the players change, but the causes remain constant. Democrats try to use other issues to distract from this all-important one, because when statistics are cited such as mine, their arguments fall flat every single time.
You know what I am white and after going back and reading a lot of these post I have to say that I am blown away by just how much racism is still a factor in America. Some of you are down right rude and don't really care what you say. I thought America over the years were growing and moving pass this but I was wrong. This forum just shows how alive and well it really is. I am ashamed.
Well, you may think I am rude but what have I said that is racist? You responded to my post so I'd really like to know.
This is a popular canard the left loves to foist upon the general population during the perennial election cycle. It's a tried and true formula, and you have to give socialists credit for going back to 'Old Faithful' when it comes to good old fashioned class warfare.
The reality, however, differs from perception. In 1990, the wealthiest 1% of earners paid 25% of all federal income taxes, in 2005, it had risen to 39%.
You had mentioned Reagan and his tenure has benefitted 'wealthy' citizens. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.
I'd love to know how much more lower-middle class blacks, or for that matter, any lower or middle class person would like the 'evil rich' to pay in taxes. As it stands right now, the upper 50% of the earners pay 96% of all federal taxes. It is my assertion that Democrats would like that figure to rise by 4 more percentage points. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich.
To me, this remains the great chasm in American politics today. There is a significant corrolary to be drawn between class, race, and income. Someone had started a thread about the 'meaness' in this forum. This is the epicenter of that 'meaness'. It revolves around the government and its function in society, through measures of control, and thus taxation. In one corner, there are those, such as myself, who want the government out of our lives and out of our wallets, and in the other corner, there are those who want the government to provide for them, and intercede within the fair market. The stakes are pretty much the same, and the players change, but the causes remain constant. Democrats try to use other issues to distract from this all-important one, because when statistics are cited such as mine, their arguments fall flat every single time.
Very good post. Saved me a lot of time as I was going to take the poster on about this. I wish some of the Obamaphiles on this thread would open their eyes a bit and start doing some research instead of falling for the emotion driven "facts" the left spouts.
Because obviously you aren't thinking about the present topic. You've just simply posted a completely unsubstantiated claim, it's nothing more than mere opinion, and therefore completely useless.
More useless than your reference to Wikipedia? That invaluable source of information where anybody can claim anything.
She may be a liar. She may be vindictive. She may be a crook. And, she's going to lose. But, let's face it, she is one tough DOB (daughter of a b****). She's just a terrific fighter thru & thru. She's out of money, up against an eloquent black populist, being constantly yelled at by her own party to quit... yet despite taking shot after shot right on the chin, she keeps coming back swinging.
You ain't gonna win, but you go girl!
Hillary Clinton can win With delegates and popular vote
This is a popular canard the left loves to foist upon the general population during the perennial election cycle. It's a tried and true formula, and you have to give socialists credit for going back to 'Old Faithful' when it comes to good old fashioned class warfare.
The reality, however, differs from perception. In 1990, the wealthiest 1% of earners paid 25% of all federal income taxes, in 2005, it had risen to 39%.
You had mentioned Reagan and his tenure has benefitted 'wealthy' citizens. In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax.
I'd love to know how much more lower-middle class blacks, or for that matter, any lower or middle class person would like the 'evil rich' to pay in taxes. As it stands right now, the upper 50% of the earners pay 96% of all federal taxes. It is my assertion that Democrats would like that figure to rise by 4 more percentage points. When the majority of voters have no federal income tax liability it will be almost impossible to pass any meaningful tax cuts and further tax increases will be a piece of cake, especially if the taxes only affect those to be considered to be rich.
To me, this remains the great chasm in American politics today. There is a significant corrolary to be drawn between class, race, and income. Someone had started a thread about the 'meaness' in this forum. This is the epicenter of that 'meaness'. It revolves around the government and its function in society, through measures of control, and thus taxation. In one corner, there are those, such as myself, who want the government out of our lives and out of our wallets, and in the other corner, there are those who want the government to provide for them, and intercede within the fair market. The stakes are pretty much the same, and the players change, but the causes remain constant. Democrats try to use other issues to distract from this all-important one, because when statistics are cited such as mine, their arguments fall flat every single time.
This does remain a great chasm in politics - Agreed. You forgot to mention some of the reasoning behind this perceived imbalance -
Proponents of the use of tax brackets and a progressive tax system contend that individuals with high incomes are more able to pay income taxes while maintaining a high standard of living, while low-income individuals struggle to meet their basic needs, and should be subject to less taxation.
Furthermore, the use of tax brackets has an automatic stabilizing effect on an individuals' after-tax income, as a decrease in salary is counteracted by a decrease in tax rate, leaving the individual with a less substantial decrease in after-tax income.
The million dollar question is - What is the best tax system?
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,766,887 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexus
Yeah, where was this fighter when called upon to give an informed vote to authorize the Iraq war? Where has this "tough" fighter been in opposing the war while in Congress?
It is easy to win states that you are EXPECTED to win. Get real.
Overwhelmingly self-serving is what I would call her "spirit."
Barack is the true fighter in this contest.
I agree. He was down 25% a few weeks ago and he still fought hard for the state and made up 15 points. He just could not overcome Rendell, Nutter and the Catholic racist in that state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you submit that blacks backing Obama is due to white racism. Thanks for the chuckle.
