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.
I'm hoping in Trump's second term, he will crack down on welfare and free stuff. I see people on government support programs (subsidized housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.) having four, five, and more children, and self-supporting people limit themselves to two because that's all they can afford. Something is very wrong with that picture.
Regardless of who the next president is....there is going to be a painful recession. Hence, more people are going to be in need of "free stuff". When white folks are not working.....the term for that is "recession". When black people are not working....the term for that is "laziness and wanting free stuff".
If we're just focused on the facts, they yes to all of that. It's not just the lowest black unemployment ever recorded, overall average wages are up too. Higher wage jobs have benefits, etc., etc., etc.
I always have my doubt about any president claiming to credit or getting blamed for the economy. Most generally, it's got almost nothing to do with them. I would say that wealthy investors who had been hiding trillions in total capital outside the United States saw a Trump presidency as a good time to bring that money back to the USA. That's indirect, but it a confidence thing. The biggest thing that Trump did and does to help the economy is deregulate. Getting the governments jack boot heel off the throat of capitalism lets capitalism thrive. In comparison to any other boom economy I can recall, this president has either directly or indirectly been more the cause of it than I've ever seen.
Still don't like him very much. The guy is a dick. The guy is a bully. Never did like the guy. But Illinois might force my hand and force me to protest vote for the guy. You may have heard how the idiots running this clown car we call a state have decided to remove him from the ballot if he doesn't release all his tax returns, right? Removing a sitting president from the ballot for any reason is so blatantly undemocratic, it forces me to take a break from voting 3rd party and register my protest against the People's Republic of Illinois. Frankly, it pisses me off that they would force my hand in this manner.
I agree with you about the CONFIDENCE thing. Totally. However, I think the confidence is due to him being a white male, after having a black male. I think Obama's term really laid the foundation for economic recovery....everything was in place.....record low interest rates, government spending, the bailout of industries, etc. The only problem was.....he was a black guy and blacks are seen as inferior unless they are playing sports. Blacks are seen as poor leaders of cities, countries ect. Many people associate black leadership with incompetence and corruption and the downfall of cities. Hence, despite the foundation being laid for a strong economic recovery that recovery was stunted by the lack of business and consumer confidence in black leadership, to the degree that would exist for white male leadership. Therefore, with the foundation for economic recovery in full place.....all that was needed is a white male as the figurehead to "Make America Great Again".
You don't have to be black in order to have eyes, so roll yours all day if that makes you happy.
Just look at the political scorecard, lay of the land or by any measurement and see who benefits most from various government programs or schemes.
AAs overwhelming vote democrat in my state/area but have very little to show for their efforts over years. Asians are now the dominant group in specialized/ gifted and talented public schools, while AA's are still moaning and singing the same old tunes.
Maybe blacks are voting Democrat just to keep from suffering LOSSES!!! You keep focusing on GAIN. The possibilities are we can GAIN, STAY THE SAME, or go BACKWARDS. Maybe at this point all the Democrats are good for is ensuring that we do not slide backwards......because neither party is offering a move forward for blacks in regards to decreasing long standing socioeconomic gaps between blacks and whites.
Maybe blacks are voting Democrat just to keep from suffering LOSSES!!! You keep focusing on GAIN. The possibilities are we can GAIN, STAY THE SAME, or go BACKWARDS. Maybe at this point all the Democrats are good for is ensuring that we do not slide backwards......because neither party is offering a move forward for blacks in regards to decreasing long standing socioeconomic gaps between blacks and whites.
BLacks will go backward, or at least not gain, as long as they have people like you encouraging single, poor black women to go ahead and make babies they can't afford because white people will pay for them - which is exactly what you did in the post a few up.
You are encouraging black women to take actions that will practically guarantee them a life of poverty, and then you complain that blacks are still lagging behind whites. SMH.
So you're saying that black women without mates shouldn't deprive themselves of having children, even if they CANNOT afford them?? That's the biggest problem right there: black people assuring single black women that they should go ahead and make as many babies as they want because someone else (primarily white people) will support them.
And your response to me will be "don't tell black people what to do!" What a sense of entitlement you have. You're telling single black women who can't afford children to go ahead and have them because the (predominantly) white population will pay for them, and then when whitey complains, you have the gall to say "don't tell us what to do." Well, news flash: don't tell white people what they're allowed to say!
You are making black people look really bad. It's almost like you WANT whitey to be negative toward blacks.
First off, you have resorted to lying. This is what I said: "she should not be deprive herself of having children, if that is her desire, especially if she can afford to take care of them."
I placed emphasis on being able to afford the children. Your rebuttal was based on de-emphasizing their ability to afford the children because. Who are you debating....yourself? You make up stuff then argue against it?
Prior to people owning land.....sustenance came from the land. Only drought, floods, locust invasions, etc created "poverty". Hence, the consequence of private ownership of land is that such a society needs to provide a minimal sustenance safety net for people who cannot otherwise survive.
The whole purpose of life is reproduction and the continuation of the blood line and species. ThatWILL happen whether people are rich or poor because its NATURE.
First off, you have resorted to lying. This is what I said: "she should not be deprive herself of having children, if that is her desire, especially if she can afford to take care of them."
I placed emphasis on being able to afford the children. Your rebuttal was based on de-emphasizing their ability to afford the children because. Who are you debating....yourself? You make up stuff then argue against it?
Prior to people owning land.....sustenance came from the land. Only drought, floods, locust invasions, etc created "poverty". Hence, the consequence of private ownership of land is that such a society needs to provide a minimal sustenance safety net for people who cannot otherwise survive.
The whole purpose of life is reproduction and the continuation of the blood line and species. ThatWILL happen whether people are rich or poor because its NATURE.
NO, I didn't resort to lying. YOu said ESPECIALLY, which implies that it was still Ok for poor single women to have them too. Otherwise you would have said ONLY if they can afford them.
And after you called me a liar, I didn't bother with the rest of post.
First off, you have resorted to lying. This is what I said: "she should not be deprive herself of having children, if that is her desire, especially if she can afford to take care of them."
I placed emphasis on being able to afford the children. Your rebuttal was based on de-emphasizing their ability to afford the children because. Who are you debating....yourself? You make up stuff then argue against it?
Prior to people owning land.....sustenance came from the land. Only drought, floods, locust invasions, etc created "poverty". Hence, the consequence of private ownership of land is that such a society needs to provide a minimal sustenance safety net for people who cannot otherwise survive.
The whole purpose of life is reproduction and the continuation of the blood line and species. ThatWILL happen whether people are rich or poor because its NATURE.
LOL, and the way she can afford them is via government (taxpayer) help.
BLacks will go backward, or at least not gain, as long as they have people like you encouraging single, poor black women to go ahead and make babies they can't afford because white people will pay for them - which is exactly what you did in the post a few up.
You are encouraging black women to take actions that will practically guarantee them a life of poverty, and then you complain that blacks are still lagging behind whites. SMH.
I encourage black women to be fruitful and multiply. I speak for myself and do not need your straw man paraphrasing. If a black women wants to have children, is gainfully employed, but can't find a mate that wants to commit or who she is willing to commit to, I don't frown on such a women having a child out of wedlock. I would rather her fulfill her destiny to reproduce as a single mother rather than not having children or marrying someone that would make her unhappy.
In the meantime, it's certainly not what blacks are OWED from centuries of racial oppression, but this society, which is dominated by whites, should be expected to pay something.....even if its just welfare. If you don't want to pay welfare...then pay the reparations...but you are GOING TO PAY SOMETHING!!! You have no problem paying 30,000 a year to house and feed a black prisoner. People like you willfully pay to punish....but will not willfully pay to help.....but you are ALWAYS going to be PAYING.
NO, I didn't resort to lying. YOu said ESPECIALLY, which implies that it was still Ok for poor single women to have them too. Otherwise you would have said ONLY if they can afford them.
And after you called me a liar, I didn't bother with the rest of post.
According to the 2018 Motherly State of Motherhood Survey, black mothers are four times more likely to be single and serve as the primary breadwinners of their home. From 2012-2017, the number of single black mothers who earned more than $75,000 grew 106%, compared to the growth of single white mothers at 76%. What’s more interesting, in the past five years (from 2012-2017) single black mothers outpaced the income growth of all single mothers (12% vs. 10%, respectively).
The bottom line is that many of you white dissenters have STRONG OPINIONS....but WEAK KNOWLEDGE. You don't really understand jack slit about what is really happening in the black community and hence strong opinion is simply strong PREJUDICE.
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.
