• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has the Democratic Party done more to help or hurt the black community?

Tinfoil Hater

Graduate Poster
Tinfoil Hater
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,440
It seems cities that have large populations of African Americans living in poverty have been under a monopoly of Democratic party leadership for years. Detroit, Ferguson ans Chicago come to mind. Yet many community leaders from those cities often blame Republicans for the state of the black community- but doesn't much of the blame fall on the Democratic party- Starting with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs? Things for African Americans seem to have gotten even worse with Barack Obama as president- and yet the Republicans are getting the blame
 
Last edited:
Perhaps because the cities "under a monopoly of Democratic party leadership" are subject to additional layers of government?
 
Compared to?

If you want to answer that question you have to examine black communities in Republican-run states and counties.
 
catsmate said:
Perhaps because the cities "under a monopoly of Democratic party leadership" are subject to additional layers of government?
Click to expand...

By this, I assume you mean, a layer of Repubs? State gov? Not in those states. Any layer at the fed level has flipped and flopped. Congress/senate?/Pres all.

Nah, the problem for the blacks is that the Dem Pols have learned to buy their votes with social programs. The Pols get power, the children get candy. Keep them ignorant children, they will continue to swap votes for candy- the Dems run the schools too.

And now, the colleges are teaching propaganda to the blacks too. Divisively.

Used to be America was spoken of as a "melting pot". The concept of unity has been replaced with divisive agitation. So that the politicians can keep us scared, so we will vote for them to lead as to safety. And give us candy. It works for the Repubs too.

Look at the divisive issues- gun control, abortion, SSM, segregation have all been decided by the supreme court, yet the agitators keep them in the fore front.

We are being played. It's just a question of which flavor kool-ade is our candy.

You know kool-ade is all sugar, no nutrition.
 
casebro said:
Look at the divisive issues- gun control, abortion, SSM, segregation have all been decided by the supreme court, yet the agitators keep them in the fore front..
Click to expand...

AMEN! Look at the divisive issues- slavery, internment of the Japanese, eminent domain, first amendment rights for Corporations and Unions have all been decided by the supreme court, yet the agitators keep them in the fore front.

bloody AGITATORS!
 
Are things really quantitatively worse for African-Americans (A-A) now compared to post the Obama Presidency? I don't believe that. Off the cuff you may believe that because these types of issues seem to be the buzz of society right now.

Would you agree that Obama won the last election(s) because of votes from A-A's?

Concerning the OP, I have a similar opinion as casebro. Democrats have been able to successfully convince A-A's that their troubles are a result of systematic oppression, racism, etc and not a result of personal choice/responsibility.
If your troubles/lack of success are through no fault of your own, I don't see how you could have a positive outlook on improving your situation. It's very difficult to "change the world" so you can succeed.
On the other hand, if your troubles/lack of success are a result of the choices you make then doing something to change that is well within your ability.

A history of which parties supported A-A's equality and when:
This The American Conservative article paints a history of Republicans writing laws and supporting A-A's equality in the late 1800's and early 1900's. It would appear that the Democrats changed their position on equality in the mid 1900's. This Washington Post article lays out very nicely when A-A's started supporting Democrats.

My take on the present day situation is that Democrats are directly catering to A-A's needs, while Republicans are too busy arguing with Democrats if the policies they are coming up with are more helpful or harmful to A-A's, while not suggesting any solutions of their own.
 
Democrat party has successfuly pushed for programs to help end malnutrion, homelessness, extreme poverty, poor education.

We haven't done a great job at creating entry-level jobs that are a stepping ladder into the middle class
 
Tinfoil Hater said:
It seems cities that have large populations of African Americans living in poverty have been under a monopoly of Democratic party leadership for years. Detroit, Ferguson ans Chicago come to mind. Yet many community leaders from those cities often blame Republicans for the state of the black community- but doesn't much of the blame fall on the Democratic party- Starting with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs? Things for African Americans seem to have gotten even worse with Barack Obama as president- and yet the Republicans are getting the blame
Click to expand...
This is the new GOP narrative. Blame Clinton and Obama for the every world conflict out there as if none of the problems are the result of a century of US and EU intervention screwing up governments and enjoying the resources, as if GW Bush's invasion of Iraq contributed nothing.

Now they want everyone to believe the local Democratically controlled city governments control everything from the economy to state and federal laws and spending to the inherent racism that still lingers in the country.

For the record, the Flint water disaster was the direct result of the GOP governor replacing the local government with the single person that made the decisions which resulted in the lead contaminated water and the year+ long effort to cover it up.
Let's start with what the GOP is responsible for: thwarting efforts for infrastructure and social services funding at the state and federal level in order to give rich people tax breaks. Said tax breaks supposedly were going to result in more jobs. They haven't. Instead, the private sector jobs market has slowly revived with the GOP complaining somehow slow growth was Obama's fault, all the while the economic stimulation that would have come from public jobs has been thwarted.

Of course the GOP efforts to put stopping Obama's second term and now stopping Clinton was always there sole goal. Working for the good of the country doesn't matter to these selfish pigs one bit.

Cue the new GOP slogan, it's all Clinton and the Democrats fault. Watch the baseless assertion spread through the right wing echo chamber repeated by the low information voters and the confirmation biased right wing.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Democratic party has successfuly pushed for programs to help end malnutrion, homelessness, extreme poverty, poor education.

We haven't done a great job at creating entry-level jobs that are a stepping ladder into the middle class
Click to expand...
Democrat is a noun. Democratic is the adjective. Democratic Party is the name of the party.

As for the entry level jobs, the problem is twofold. One is demand. The GOP continues to act as if the problem is supply, thus they want to continue supplementing that trickle-down supply. What is needed is demand, which comes from the bottom having more money to spend.

The second is resistance to minimum wage increases and holding corporations accountable for underpaid employees. For example, if people who work full time at Walmart need health insurance subsidies and food stamps from the government, then the US should pass legislation taxing Walmart for subsidizing Walmart's labor costs.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Democrat is a noun. Democratic is the adjective. Democratic Party is the name of the party.

As for the entry level jobs, the problem is twofold. One is demand. The GOP continues to act as if the problem is supply, thus they want to continue supplementing that trickle-down supply. What is needed is demand, which comes from the bottom having more money to spend.

The second is resistance to minimum wage increases and holding corporations accountable for underpaid employees. For example, if people who work full time at Walmart need health insurance subsidies and food stamps from the government, then the US should pass legislation taxing Walmart for subsidizing Walmart's labor costs.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp You think the problem is not enough entry level jobs, but you want to raise the minimum wage and tax employers if their employees get government benefits? It seems like your understanding of economics is rather shallow, to say the least.

For the record, Walmart hires the dregs of the labor pool. Many of their most junior employees literally cannot get a job anywhere else. Without Walmart, they would likely be doing nothing, doing drugs, or committing crime (or all three).
 
sunmaster14 said:
:jaw-dropp You think the problem is not enough entry level jobs, but you want to raise the minimum wage and tax employers if their employees get government benefits? It seems like your understanding of economics is rather shallow, to say the least.

For the record, Walmart hires the dregs of the labor pool. Many of their most junior employees literally cannot get a job anywhere else. Without Walmart, they would likely be doing nothing, doing drugs, or committing crime (or all three).
Click to expand...
So there should be no minimum wage? I don't follow. And why should taxpayers fund employers to pay people less than a living wage?
 
Craig B said:
So there should be no minimum wage? I don't follow.
Click to expand...

Of course there shouldn't. Why should the government come in and tell two parties that they can't enter into a labor contract of their own free will because the dollar remuneration is too low? First, that prevents people who aren't productive enough to produce at least a minimum wage's worth of value per hour from ever getting a job. Second, there are potentially a lot more benefits that accrue to an employee than just the wages. That's why unpaid internships exist. Why can you pay somebody zero, but you can't pay somebody $5 per hour? For young people just starting out in the labor market, the job experience is worth far more than the actual wages. You could be increasing your future value in the labor market at the rate of $20 per hour work even if you are working for free.

And why should taxpayers fund employers to pay people less than a living wage?
Click to expand...

Because otherwise those employees wouldn't have a job at all because the employers are not willing to pay them more, and the employees would not be willing to work for a total income that doesn't keep them alive. The employees will instead go on the government dole completely, or perhaps turn to crime in order to make ends meet. It is better that somebody works than stays at home or commits crime, don't you think? The job experience might even enable that employee to become more productive and get a job that pays a living wage all on its own.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Of course there shouldn't. Why should the government come in and tell two parties that they can't enter into a labor contract of their own free will because the dollar remuneration is too low? First, that prevents people who aren't productive enough to produce at least a minimum wage's worth of value per hour from ever getting a job. Second, there are potentially a lot more benefits that accrue to an employee than just the wages. That's why unpaid internships exist. Why can you pay somebody zero, but you can't pay somebody $5 per hour? For young people just starting out in the labor market, the job experience is worth far more than the actual wages. You could be increasing your future value in the labor market at the rate of $20 per hour work even if you are working for free.



Because otherwise those employees wouldn't have a job at all because the employers are not willing to pay them more, and the employees would not be willing to work for a total income that doesn't keep them alive. The employees will instead go on the government dole completely, or perhaps turn to crime in order to make ends meet. It is better that somebody works than stays at home or commits crime, don't you think? The job experience might even enable that employee to become more productive and get a job that pays a living wage all on its own.
Click to expand...

If you set the slaves free, they may not be able to eat at all. Surely they will have a better life on the plantation. The job experience received may even enable the slave to become more productive and able to move in from the yard and into the house.
 
Tinfoil Hater said:
Has the Democratic Party done more to help or hurt the black community?
Click to expand...

People aren't going to agree, and at the end of the day, this question doesn't even really matter. Whether or not the Democratic party has done more in the past, the important question now is whether black voters will benefit more now from continuing to vote so overwhelmingly for Democrats, or from voting some other way. And on that score, I think the argument is clearer: blacks would do better to vote for both Republicans and Democrats. Particularly in many inner cities, the one-party status quo has been devastating to black communities. One-party rule is not healthy for any government.

And even nationally, the Democrats basically take black voters for granted. They rile them up with issues like police violence in order to turn out the vote, but then betray them on issues like illegal immigration, the war on drugs, civil forfeiture, etc. But if black voters aren't prepared to vote Republican, and to demonstrate that willingness on at least occasion, then the Democrats are going to keep taking them for granted.
 
I love how the Republican Party praises private enterprise for all good things, and considers government superfluous. Except when it comes time to pretend & blame.

Who does the bulk of hiring, who runs the banks? Who works at the real estate agencies? What if 99% of the cartoon and TV heroes and positive social models are not black, and blacks predominate in media depictions of crime? As for government, how is public service and investment funding slanted on a state level toward affluent/suburban communities? Who is doing the policing and judging, who is making state laws? What if as a result of all the above there is an unfair lower average achievement level of your group that nonetheless gets assimilated by all in society?

The field of play is warped against blacks from the get go, starting with racist the expectations they pick up from society, and from history. As for that last, imagine all the pride you feel as a hyphenated-American, say Irish-American. Now imagine growing up learning you are a descendant of slave-Americans? How does that shape you? Worth giving some considered thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom