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.
 
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...

No, many agree that the dems aren't doing nearly as much as they could - although I'd outright laugh at anyone who says that things aren't improving.

But why would I bother with a party that's sunk to running a white nationalist for the highest office in the country - and yes, Trump's a white nationalist in addition to being an all-around idiot. Yes, I'd like to have two parties that give a damn about black communities in general, and I say this even as a liberal. It's very clear that in general, the GOP does not, and has not for quite some time.
 
casebro said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is actually 1 layer you are forgetting : the corporate/housing layer. This is mostly a right wing oriented layer. Statistic and blind check have shown that when it comes to housing, having a slight more colored skins automatically give you a disadvantage at renting or even sometimes buying house in some places. Means you can be reduced to house in a less good environment with all the baggage. The same happens sometimes, blind checks shows that minorities sometimes have more difficulties to land an interview and more difficulties to land the job after interview. The same is reflected by the way with the slant in accepting location for example for airbnb.

Note that this does not need to be widespread, if only a few percentage of people do it, it can eb enough to skew the whole social environment AGAINST a minority.
 
Mumbles said:
No, many agree that the dems aren't doing nearly as much as they could - although I'd outright laugh at anyone who says that things aren't improving.

But why would I bother with a party that's sunk to running a white nationalist for the highest office in the country - and yes, Trump's a white nationalist in addition to being an all-around idiot. Yes, I'd like to have two parties that give a damn about black communities in general, and I say this even as a liberal. It's very clear that in general, the GOP does not, and has not for quite some time.
Click to expand...

Hey you, the liberals haven't helped you at all. Why don't you give the Klan a chance?
 
Let's not ignore the fact that the GOP has pretty much abandoned any efforts at getting elected. Our recent Mayorial election in Philly the GOP candidate was just a quickly converted Democrat trying to do another runoff.

Prior to that the last GOP chance at the Philly mayorship was Sam Katz whose strong campaign in 2003 almost unseated the Demoscratic Mayor. Katz worked with basically no support from the national GOP (not unusual for GOP city mayoral candidates) and when the incumbant mayor found an FBI wiretap in his office he was able to link Katz and the unpopular Bush and Latz lost.

The GOP, when it comes to urban centers and minority populations has done little courting beyond whining: "Why don't you support u-u-u-sssss!?" with some lip service to how things may not have improved as much as they theoretically could have during Democratic administrations.

But they rarely have any answers that minorities would be interested as 'tax cuts for the rich' doesn't strike any bells in North Philadelphia. So you get the comments like above of how the minority populations have been 'bribed' and such with social programs...you know the ones that keep them from starvation, homelessness, massive medical debt, and much worse.

In short, the GOP is indifferent to minorites and most cities, and they are indifferent right back.
 
kookbreaker said:
Let's not ignore the fact that the GOP has pretty much abandoned any efforts at getting elected. Our recent Mayorial election in Philly the GOP candidate was just a quickly converted Democrat trying to do another runoff.

Prior to that the last GOP chance at the Philly mayorship was Sam Katz whose strong campaign in 2003 almost unseated the Demoscratic Mayor. Katz worked with basically no support from the national GOP (not unusual for GOP city mayoral candidates) and when the incumbant mayor found an FBI wiretap in his office he was able to link Katz and the unpopular Bush and Latz lost.

The GOP, when it comes to urban centers and minority populations has done little courting beyond whining: "Why don't you support u-u-u-sssss!?" with some lip service to how things may not have improved as much as they theoretically could have during Democratic administrations.

But they rarely have any answers that minorities would be interested as 'tax cuts for the rich' doesn't strike any bells in North Philadelphia. So you get the comments like above of how the minority populations have been 'bribed' and such with social programs...you know the ones that keep them from starvation, homelessness, massive medical debt, and much worse.

In short, the GOP is indifferent to minorites and most cities, and they are indifferent right back.
Click to expand...

Yep. Even in NYC where Republicans can get elected to Mayor or city government, the city winners wind up abandoning the party (see Lindsay, see Bloomberg) because the GOP is antithetical to helping take care of large urban populations.

"Try us! We couldn't be worse."

Maybe the Dems should do that with the po' white trash GOP vote. "Hey, Goober. Now, seriously.... y'all been electing Republicans since 1964. I see you've moved into your pa's double-wide. Same one he had back then, isn't it? How's the upwards mobility thing going for you? Hear you lost a couple of more good ol' boy buddies last week. One to liver failure, t'other ate his gun. Just what has the GOP done for you? Might as well try us. Yeah, we're gonna take away your illegal guns and give some ******* and beaners better health care, but what have you got to lose. Clearly the Republicans aren't doing anything for you. Why not vote Democrat this time?"
 
Foolmewunz said:
Yep. Even in NYC where Republicans can get elected to Mayor or city government, the city winners wind up abandoning the party (see Lindsay, see Bloomberg) because the GOP is antithetical to helping take care of large urban populations.

"Try us! We couldn't be worse."
Click to expand...

Definitely, many of the worst problems in cities (the severe lack of funding, and the ravages of the Crack Era) actually stem back to the federal level - Ronald Reagan was astonishingly bad here. GWB was laughably incompetent. Nixon...well, where did you think that supremacist Trump got his "Law and Order" debate line from? And that's not to mention Watergate. I guess that leaves GHWB as possibly not openly hostile.
 
Mumbles said:
Nixon...well, where did you think that supremacist Trump got his "Law and Order" debate line from? And that's not to mention Watergate.
Click to expand...

Nixon was so weird about that. Apart from being content with exploiting racial animosity for cynical political gain, going back and forth on racist and antisemitic rants seems to have been a favourite pastime of his (although he seems to have liked to consider every possible direction on various issues). Regardless of that, he also apparently treated black people, including White House staff, better than any of his predecessors; he seems to have treated them as equals. I've seen it attributed to his strict Quaker upbringing, which is a bit hard to believe considering his disregard for the teachings of the denomination otherwise...

The man must have had a lot of cognitive dissonance for sure.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Yep. Even in NYC where Republicans can get elected to Mayor or city government, the city winners wind up abandoning the party (see Lindsay, see Bloomberg) because the GOP is antithetical to helping take care of large urban populations.
Click to expand...

There was a time when being a city Republican was an actual species and was simply a business friendly, reduce-spending type of politician. They might not be the best for minority concerns, but were not overtly hostile to them, either. They stayed away from issues like abortion and similar issues with the attitude that it was all fait accompli anyway. The city GOP was not fond of tilting at windmills.

In the past their candidacy might have actually gotten some support from national GOP. This might have been true up until around 2006-2008. Then the city Republicans were seen as RINOs at best and traitors at worst. The rise of the Tea Party turned the GOP to crazy and the City Republicans I know just roll their eyes at what happens nationally. A few of them (Guilianni) end up drinking the Kool-Aid.
 
Argumemnon said:
Wait, how does that work? Up here in Canada you can only vote for one person at a time.
Click to expand...

You can only vote for one person for one office, but the ballot may be for multiple offices, allowing you to vote for multiple people. So for example, you could be voting for president, senator, congressman, governor, state senator, state congressman, mayor, and a few more besides, all on one ballot. So one individual could vote 50% Democrat and 50% Republican, all on the same ballot.

Not that this is actually relevant to my original argument, but if we're on a silly tangent, might as well take it all the way.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Nixon was so weird about that. Apart from being content with exploiting racial animosity for cynical political gain, going back and forth on racist and antisemitic rants seems to have been a favourite pastime of his (although he seems to have liked to consider every possible direction on various issues). Regardless of that, he also apparently treated black people, including White House staff, better than any of his predecessors; he seems to have treated them as equals. I've seen it attributed to his strict Quaker upbringing, which is a bit hard to believe considering his disregard for the teachings of the denomination otherwise...

The man must have had a lot of cognitive dissonance for sure.
Click to expand...
I get it. Law and Order disproportionately effects blacks, therefore the argument is that it's racist & that anybody who supports it is racist. Careful analysis reveals that there are other more prevalent, less polarizing, and beneficial explanations.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe the republicans should create policies that are more friendly to cities instead of attacking them every chance they get?

Vote republican they have a black sheriff who lets people die of dehydration in his jail. That is surely going to win votes.
 
ServiceSoon said:
I get it. Law and Order disproportionately effects blacks, therefore the argument is that it's racist & that anybody who supports it is racist. Careful analysis reveals that there are other more prevalent, less polarizing, and beneficial explanations.
Click to expand...

Stop and frisk is great at keeping the blacks in their place and taking away their legal guns as is Trumps plan. Classic Law and Order policy.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Maybe the republicans should create policies that are more friendly to cities instead of attacking them every chance they get?
Click to expand...

City-friendly policies like banning Uber or requiring government licenses to cut hair?

Vote republican they have a black sheriff who lets people die of dehydration in his jail. That is surely going to win votes.
Click to expand...

As opposed to, say, Baltimore. Or New York. Or Milwaukee. Democratic government strongholds (more like strangleholds). And yet....
 
Ziggurat said:
You can only vote for one person for one office, but the ballot may be for multiple offices, allowing you to vote for multiple people. So for example, you could be voting for president, senator, congressman, governor, state senator, state congressman, mayor, and a few more besides, all on one ballot. So one individual could vote 50% Democrat and 50% Republican, all on the same ballot.

Not that this is actually relevant to my original argument, but if we're on a silly tangent, might as well take it all the way.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay.

I understand what you mean, but I wasn't under the impression that this is what you were talking about when you said this:

Ziggurat said:
blacks would do better to vote for both Republicans and Democrats.
Click to expand...
 
Argumemnon said:
Sorry for the delay.

I understand what you mean, but I wasn't under the impression that this is what you were talking about when you said this:
Click to expand...

Of course it wasn't what I originally meant. And I'm assuming that you knew I didn't mean cancelling each other's votes out either when you posted this:

Argumemnon said:
Wouldn't that annul their vote? ;)
Click to expand...

I took your post to be a joke, and went with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom