Blacks and Democrats
I'm a news junkie, so today I was browsing one of my favorite haunts, NewsMax, when I came across the article referenced above. I've been going back and forth with a liberal black guy in my office about politics and Iraq etcetera and showed him the following clip from the news article:
He responded with the following:
Now, considering that the Democrats "look out for those that dont (sic) have much or nothing at all", I find it amazing that the average donation the national Democratic party is around $1,000. Looking at the Rich White Party (known among us heathens as the Republicans), it's very odd to find that their average donation is generally under $50. It's also interesting to note that Bush has the smallest net value of all four presidential/vice presidential candidates.
One area where the Democrats rule is in the area of public perception, at least among those who are more impressed by catchy sound bites and slogans than by well thought out facts. They have used to advantage this little saying: Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. And taking care of the disadvantaged is a prime example.
The Democrats are the party for the disadvantaged. Why? Because they say they are, silly! Why are blacks disadvantaged in this day of equal opportunity, set-aside grants, and a Politically Correct climate that frowns on anything remotely demeaning to a black or "black culture"? Why, because the Democrats say they are, silly! And not only do the Democrats say so now, but they have been saying so for several decades. So you know it just has to be true.
What did Clinton do for blacks? He appointed Joycelyn Elders as the Surgeon General, who then spent much of her time telling all young girls that they should never go on a date without a condom in their purse and talking up masturbation as a cure for AIDS. Now there's a role model! Oh, yes, and there was all of Clinton's "sexual indiscretions" while in office, completely escaping culpability, and wallowing in the title "The First Black President". He professed close friendship with Ron Brown ("Some of my best friends are black!"). And, most importantly, he said he was the friend of all blacks and all disadvantaged people.
Bush appointed two highly educated, well-qualified, well-spoken blacks to extremely high cabinet posts. I saw a comparison a while back between Dr. Condoleeza Rice and a bunch of Hollywood wannabe pundits and Dr. Rice's credentials were astonishing (the wannabees had mostly high school educations). General Colin Powell (retired) is no featherweight, either. Both of these are people who have played major roles in organizations that required real thought and dedication, not simply a loud mouth and witty one-liners.
Bush also pushed tax cuts that benefited everyone who pays taxes. As far as the Democratic charges that the cuts primarily benefit the rich . . . they are absolutely true. If you pay the most taxes and a tax cut comes along, you will naturally get the most back. If you pay no taxes, you don't get a break. Bush neither said nor implied that he was pushing for handouts; he said he wanted tax cuts.
How do tax cuts help the disadvantaged, then?
Much flak was given over "Reaganomics", the economic concept known as supply-side economics (or derisively as "trickle-down economics"). The concept was, give business more money so they can invest more, produce more, and hire more. This was ridiculed as one of the stupidest ideas since dehydrated water. Almost the entire Democratic establishment, cronies included, loudly proclaimed what an imbecilic, bone-headed idea this was. Luckily for them, they were able to studiously ignore the niggling little fact that it worked. According to the Census Bureau, minority-owned businesses flourished as never before under Ronald Reagan, who I have personally heard referred to as the anti-Christ by members of the pseudo-religious group Nation of Islam (their justification: he was a powerful leader with six letters in his first, middle, and last names).
So, what did Reaganomics have to do with minorities and the poor? What do fiscally conservative policies do for the disadvantaged? Two things. One, under conservative management businesses tend to grow, which means there are more jobs available. The other advantage is that conservatives aren't as quick to give handouts, which tends to goad people into actually trying to get and keep jobs. Many people would argue that withholding handouts is cruel. Well, it's not "nice" as several people define it but, by that definition, neither is making a young child walk as opposed to constantly carrying him around (come to think of it, the liberals sound just like our son when he doesn't get his way. I may be onto something here . . .). Conservative fiscal policies do not discriminate -- they make the same opportunities available to people instead of saying, "It's all right that you're poor. It must be someone else's fault. Here, have some money."
One last example and I'll quit. Bush recently caught seven kinds of hell for pushing marriage as a way to combat poverty. "He's forcing women into abusive marriages!" was one popular cry. However, strong links have been found linking marriage to reduced poverty rates in households with children. Children raised in two-parent families (especially one man and one woman -- it's a shame that I even have to make this distinction) stand a much better chance of finishing school and becoming financially independent than do their single-parent counterparts.
Conservatives/Republicans are better for minorities than their Liberal/Democratic counterparts. Democrats do very little but trumpet the fact that they care about the disadvantaged. Republicans do a lot for everyone as a whole but don't make a fuss out of it because it's simply the right thing to do. So long as the Democrats can keep the average black person poor and uneducated, they'll have a consistent voter base for years to come.
[Side note: I don't post very often because, as is obvious, once I get started it's difficult to stop]
A full 75 percent of black voters actually expect Democrats to lower taxes, according to an exhaustive study by Republican consultant Richard Nadler, who cites stunning support for GOP policies in a poll conducted by Kellyanne Conway following the 2002 midterm elections.
The survey shows that 69 percent of African-Americans believe that Democrats will also better "protect the rights of the unborn." And 62 percent of blacks say Democrats are "more likely to reduce terrorism by strengthening the national defense."
He responded with the following:
not sure...never heard anyone speak in those terms about the democrats.....I can tell you first hand that the reason that black folks gravitate to the party and even shun blacks that dont is that the general perception (well earned) is that democrats look out for those that dont have much or nothing at all and that Republicans are looking out for themselves only and trying to keep the wealth and power amongst themselves.....even to the extent of intentionally holding others down.....cause half of the allure of being on top is that you can look down at others
Now, considering that the Democrats "look out for those that dont (sic) have much or nothing at all", I find it amazing that the average donation the national Democratic party is around $1,000. Looking at the Rich White Party (known among us heathens as the Republicans), it's very odd to find that their average donation is generally under $50. It's also interesting to note that Bush has the smallest net value of all four presidential/vice presidential candidates.
One area where the Democrats rule is in the area of public perception, at least among those who are more impressed by catchy sound bites and slogans than by well thought out facts. They have used to advantage this little saying: Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. And taking care of the disadvantaged is a prime example.
The Democrats are the party for the disadvantaged. Why? Because they say they are, silly! Why are blacks disadvantaged in this day of equal opportunity, set-aside grants, and a Politically Correct climate that frowns on anything remotely demeaning to a black or "black culture"? Why, because the Democrats say they are, silly! And not only do the Democrats say so now, but they have been saying so for several decades. So you know it just has to be true.
What did Clinton do for blacks? He appointed Joycelyn Elders as the Surgeon General, who then spent much of her time telling all young girls that they should never go on a date without a condom in their purse and talking up masturbation as a cure for AIDS. Now there's a role model! Oh, yes, and there was all of Clinton's "sexual indiscretions" while in office, completely escaping culpability, and wallowing in the title "The First Black President". He professed close friendship with Ron Brown ("Some of my best friends are black!"). And, most importantly, he said he was the friend of all blacks and all disadvantaged people.
Bush appointed two highly educated, well-qualified, well-spoken blacks to extremely high cabinet posts. I saw a comparison a while back between Dr. Condoleeza Rice and a bunch of Hollywood wannabe pundits and Dr. Rice's credentials were astonishing (the wannabees had mostly high school educations). General Colin Powell (retired) is no featherweight, either. Both of these are people who have played major roles in organizations that required real thought and dedication, not simply a loud mouth and witty one-liners.
Bush also pushed tax cuts that benefited everyone who pays taxes. As far as the Democratic charges that the cuts primarily benefit the rich . . . they are absolutely true. If you pay the most taxes and a tax cut comes along, you will naturally get the most back. If you pay no taxes, you don't get a break. Bush neither said nor implied that he was pushing for handouts; he said he wanted tax cuts.
How do tax cuts help the disadvantaged, then?
Much flak was given over "Reaganomics", the economic concept known as supply-side economics (or derisively as "trickle-down economics"). The concept was, give business more money so they can invest more, produce more, and hire more. This was ridiculed as one of the stupidest ideas since dehydrated water. Almost the entire Democratic establishment, cronies included, loudly proclaimed what an imbecilic, bone-headed idea this was. Luckily for them, they were able to studiously ignore the niggling little fact that it worked. According to the Census Bureau, minority-owned businesses flourished as never before under Ronald Reagan, who I have personally heard referred to as the anti-Christ by members of the pseudo-religious group Nation of Islam (their justification: he was a powerful leader with six letters in his first, middle, and last names).
So, what did Reaganomics have to do with minorities and the poor? What do fiscally conservative policies do for the disadvantaged? Two things. One, under conservative management businesses tend to grow, which means there are more jobs available. The other advantage is that conservatives aren't as quick to give handouts, which tends to goad people into actually trying to get and keep jobs. Many people would argue that withholding handouts is cruel. Well, it's not "nice" as several people define it but, by that definition, neither is making a young child walk as opposed to constantly carrying him around (come to think of it, the liberals sound just like our son when he doesn't get his way. I may be onto something here . . .). Conservative fiscal policies do not discriminate -- they make the same opportunities available to people instead of saying, "It's all right that you're poor. It must be someone else's fault. Here, have some money."
One last example and I'll quit. Bush recently caught seven kinds of hell for pushing marriage as a way to combat poverty. "He's forcing women into abusive marriages!" was one popular cry. However, strong links have been found linking marriage to reduced poverty rates in households with children. Children raised in two-parent families (especially one man and one woman -- it's a shame that I even have to make this distinction) stand a much better chance of finishing school and becoming financially independent than do their single-parent counterparts.
Conservatives/Republicans are better for minorities than their Liberal/Democratic counterparts. Democrats do very little but trumpet the fact that they care about the disadvantaged. Republicans do a lot for everyone as a whole but don't make a fuss out of it because it's simply the right thing to do. So long as the Democrats can keep the average black person poor and uneducated, they'll have a consistent voter base for years to come.
[Side note: I don't post very often because, as is obvious, once I get started it's difficult to stop]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home