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.
No, it impacted black people more, because black people couldn't rely on equity. White people have more diversified investments(mutual funds, businesses, life insurance), whereas with black people homeownership was the only source of wealth.
My observation is that for many, if not most, black people, it doesn't appeal to them if you say you are good for all poor/working people. They seem to want special (favorable) treatment. So things like Affirmative Action, certain kinds of welfare.... And they associate Dem. with that.
Obviously Clinton knows that and tries her best to appeal their appetite. As for whether she will actually deliver what she promises, they don't seem to mind.
On the other hand, Sanders is for all working people, and that is not enough to appeal some. As Bernie Sanders said in his C-SPAN interview as mayor of Burlington (on YouTube), Martin Luther King didn't get trouble in the early days; but once he made the statements that he wanted to unite all working people black, white, .... against the rich.... he immediately had his phone tapped by FBI, and the government began to censor him in many ways. I doubt many black people were aware of King's fight as being not merely against racisim.
Most Asian and Hispanic people also vote democrat, so the better question is why are white people outliers. I am black, and I vote democrat mainly because republicans don't support infrastructure, job creation. And they support the US empire more than the democrats, which I don't support. US national security concerns are due to US meddling. We wouldn't really have terrorism or threats if the US disengaged and let other people fix their own issues.
i agree with a lot of what you have said, but i cannot see how the democrats have created more jobs? i dont mean that in a snarky away at all, but a lot of the democrat sponsored trade deals (e.g., NAFTA is a good example) were US job killers. i know there are arguments that the net impact was minimal job loss, but there is enough data to say that those type of agreements do impact US jobs on some significantly negative level. and increasing jobs through infrastructure spending? wasnt the TARP supposed to provide funding which would then create jobs to improve infrastructure? i havent gone deep into the research but it appears that very little of our TARP money every ended up as new jobs to rebuild infrastructure.
On a plane coming back from Texas, a journalist asked LBJ is he was going to sign off on the Civil Rights Law, and (drunken man speaks the truth?) he said: You betcha! If, for no other reason, we'll have them kissing our butts until the end of time!
Mayor Daley of Chicago, early on, facing a Republican-voting Black South Chicago, learned quickly how to steer them to vote for him: don't crack down on the gambling dens or prostitution on the South Side, build lots of public housing high rises to prevent them from infiltrating the suburbs or white areas of Chicago! And throw in lots of "sweets"!
No, it impacted black people more, because black people couldn't rely on equity.
I completely disagree. Most people rely on their home equity for their net wealth, and Blacks have a significantly lower percentage of home ownership than Whites. So the decline in home equity does NOT explain the widening wealth gap between Blacks and Whites during the Obama Admin. If anything, your ridiculous premise should have narrowed it. Note that it did not.
On the other hand, Sanders is for all working people
Then why does he want to tax their pension plans and retirement accounts with the transaction tax?
Oh, you thought only Wall Street and the "rich" will pay that? Guess again... American workers and retirees have $27 Trillion invested in their pension plans and retirement accounts. Guess where that's invested? Yep, Main Street America, aka all working and retired people with any kind of pension plan or retirement account will pay a significant portion of Bernie's supposed "tax on Wall Street."
i agree with a lot of what you have said, but i cannot see how the democrats have created more jobs? i dont mean that in a snarky away at all, but a lot of the democrat sponsored trade deals (e.g., NAFTA is a good example) were US job killers. i know there are arguments that the net impact was minimal job loss, but there is enough data to say that those type of agreements do impact US jobs on some significantly negative level. and increasing jobs through infrastructure spending? wasnt the TARP supposed to provide funding which would then create jobs to improve infrastructure? i havent gone deep into the research but it appears that very little of our TARP money every ended up as new jobs to rebuild infrastructure.
Barack Obama...................8,925,000
George W. Bush.................1,281,000
Bill Clinton........................22,891,000
George H. W. Bush (1 term)..2,672,000
Ronald Reagan...................16,102,000
Jimmy Carter (1 term)........10,339,000
Nixon/Ford........................10,799,000
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.
