Obama's legacy for African American relations in the U.S

jank

This may be premature and I don't want to give the impression that Obama will be a single term president.

We all know what a historic moment it was when Obama got elected what ever side of the divide you are on. It appears that African American relations with the United States reached its pinnacle by winning an election to the highest office in the land.

What do you think this do for African American relations. Will it mark the end of the struggle for equal rights and opportunity where a new generation of African Americans will rise up to fulfill its true potential and break generations being stuck in a poverty trap?

Or is it just a smoke screen to a deeper wider issue. Is it all fireworks with no substance. Could in fact this damage African American relations in anyway?

As I mentioned it may be far too early to tell but would be interesting to hear especially from those stateside what the opinion on the ground would be

Melanoma

I think in america now there is a growing sense of fear from the tea party people. They perceive the only way for america to progress is to keep poor people poor so as to service the needs of the wealthy. The idea that concentrated poor people with no hope for upward mobility will lead to a better country is something that does not cross their minds.

I am quite right wing but do believe in programmes to help people.

They are in favour of for example allowing insurance companies to deny insurance to familiarness with a history of a condition.

They also like the idea of people working 3 jobs and struggling only to be left homeless within weeks of getting sick.

Obama is seen as a socialist but they also down him for being black.

For me I dont really see a colour but a politician who has not solved the economic problems but equally is not as crazy as the tea party.

I feel they would spend just as much on obama but do it by looking into how to feather the nests of their friends making rich people richer.

Those that are poor to hell with them.

For these people they look down on the hispanic community, blacks, white trash etc.

I think obama will win because they are too marginalising and will ultimately fail to make the people of the US cower in fear.

Amerika

Melanoma wrote: »

I think in america now there is a growing sense of fear from the tea party people. They perceive the only way for america to progress is to keep poor people poor so as to service the needs of the wealthy. The idea that concentrated poor people with no hope for upward mobility will lead to a better country is something that does not cross their minds.

As a member of the Tea Party... I can say with confidence this is plain BS! We espouse equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

jank

jank wrote: »

This may be premature and I don't want to give the impression that Obama will be a single term president.

We all know what a historic moment it was when Obama got elected what ever side of the divide you are on. It appears that African American relations with the United States reached its pinnacle by winning an election to the highest office in the land.

What do you think this do for African American relations. Will it mark the end of the struggle for equal rights and opportunity where a new generation of African Americans will rise up to fulfill its true potential and break generations being stuck in a poverty trap?

Or is it just a smoke screen to a deeper wider issue. Is it all fireworks with no substance. Could in fact this damage African American relations in anyway?

As I mentioned it may be far too early to tell but would be interesting to hear especially from those stateside what the opinion on the ground would be

It's hard to know. I think alot of black Americans thought they would suddenly see a huge change in their circumstances under Obama and this clearly would never happen.

Rio Ferdinand is in trouble currently for calling Ashley Cole a choc ice on twitter, the term is actually quite appropriate in relation to Obama who has very little in common with the average black American. Who seemed to think they had elected some demi god who would transfer their fortunes overnight, I doubt many of them are happy with him as president.

Melanoma

Amerika wrote: »

As a member of the Tea Party... I can say with confidence this is plain BS! We espouse equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.

As I said I believe in right wing politics. Cutting all programmes will not make the US a better place. Spending in the US is out of control but there are issues around the tax take from the wealthiest people.

America has a larger proportion of wealthy people and the assumption that making it easy to do business will keep the economy going is a very good idea. It is falling down though in some respects.

Currently the US has a historically higher unemployment than in years past. Who was running the country before Obama when deregulation of the banking occurred? Who did not get spending down? Now there is a big recession and its true spending cuts are required.

Do you think the republicans will cut the spending shortfall? The idea if cutting taxes to the rich to stimulate the economy is I feel at this time not going to work.

Right through the recession the wealthiest people having been doing well. This has not led to growth. Companies are full of money and they are not investing it.

Its possible a Republican party could cut heavy and make real inroads into stimulating the economy through tax cuts. But what cuts. Education? Medical care? I guess education is indefensible as all children should get good quality education it pays back in the long run. Medical care. So say someone has worked all their life and gets laid off then six months later gets sick , looses their home?

But some people will spend any saved money on budgets the Republican's dream up. As long as it makes the rich richer.

The ideas of the tea party are good but if someone works and does so for a long time they should be protected from poverty when things go wrong. True not indefinitely and I hate the socialist ideas that would encourage this but the tea party see all spending as evil and people that are in favour of spending as evil. They can not see its a different opinion as they pedal the sick logic that its destroying "freedom" or some other sound bite. Fear, Fear, Fear, Fear everything a fascist needs.

Reindeer

Amerika wrote: »

As a member of the Tea Party... I can say with confidence this is plain BS! We espouse equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.

No you don't. Equal opportunities is a more socialist platform and requires a European approach to education and vocation that is directly in conflict with items #7, and maybe #1 by the TP definition of "Taxes" as far as I can surmise on the "Tea Party Platform". Do not confuse equal rights under the law with equality of opportunity. Using rhetoric such as what I have quoted above is simply alarmist. Even most forms of socialism and communism do not mandate equal outcomes.

Don't get me wrong; many of the issues the Tea Party are trying to address are worthy problems we are facing today in the US. But seeing Tea Party members holding up the ubiquitous signs claiming Obama, a relative centrist, as a 'communist' aren't helping them any. That sign literally may as well read, "Extreme Right Wing Lunatic" or "Equal Opportunities, not equal outcomes". Both live in a universe outside our own.

I know how extreme right wing lunatics think and feel. I grew up as one in Texas. And I made a lot of money along the way. Eventually I traveled Europe. While I wouldn't say I was a socialist, after having spent time in Europe, I would agree with all the surveys I have seen that place America far down on the charts of 'best places to live' in the world. The quality of life in those countries that practice a combination of socialism and capitalism such as Germany, France, Belgium, et al truly make them places worth living.

Having said this, America is not a homogeneous society, and at the very least does not have as many common ties as the communities of Europe do. Even between European states there is a feeling of commonality we just do not get in the US. Because of this, as well as may other factors such as our political system, belief system, capitalist leanings, and electoral system, a lot will not change any time soon.

Our bi-polar political system isn't helping advance America, either. Firmly seeded within The Constitution, it has little chance of change. There is a reason the Democrats are slowly growing. The GOP has no room for progressive thinking, and the American political system does not reward a third party like many parliamentary systems do. So any new party has to attach itself to whichever of the two choices best suits them. Because the GOP is generally about lack of change or advancement of society and the environment, the majority of new voters and new parties attach to the democratic party. They did this to the tune of 10 million votes in the last election. And if it weren't for the electoral system, Bush wouldn't have been voted in back in 2000, as he lost the majority vote. I voted for Bush for governor and for president his first run. Had I know what he would have done as president, I wouldn't have voted for him, and did not vote for him in 2004. In fact, the GOP is very fortunate for the electoral system as a parliamentary power sharing system would likely bring out far more voters that felt they had a better chance to make a difference in a non zero sum voting event.

America had a golden age from WWII that stretched well in to the 80's. Few people realize how difficult things were before WWII back when the government was basically operating in a fashion the Tea Party would be far more comfortable with. Many conservatives spend too much time focusing on the American golden era where the Europeans were effectively neutralized on the back of a world war, where China basically did not exist, Mexico was a small country with 1/4 to 1/2 the population they have today, and the US was free to become an industrial and capitalist juggernaut. In that golden era, opportunities were everywhere for both poor and rich, as well as for illegal immigrants.

That era is long gone now, and will not be repeating itself until the next world war. We now live in a global economy. An economy where manufacturing jobs do not go to those that work the hardest or most efficiently, but work the cheapest. In a g20 environment, this means China, et al. A CNC machine works just as well in China as it does in Schenectady. One of the few things saving Europe is the fact it is not as cheap to ship from China as it is in the States. Poland and perhaps Slovenia and Turkey are the China of Europe. This means that more investment basically stays within, or near Europe. Our Chinese investments line Romney's pockets and produce Ferraris and Lamborghinis in China at the cost of jobs and opportunities in the US.

The GOP seem to be big on military lately. Well, the dems seem fond of it as well, just not so much at least by rhetoric. While our military investment does mostly go to American companies, it only returns a fraction of what is spent back in to the economy at a local level(a phrase TP'ers like to use often). Military contractors basically have tenure, and we know how the Tea Party feels about tenure, let alone republicans. With America's vast military the main presence in Europe, the Europeans are free to budget what would otherwise be destined towards their military projects and R&D on better targeted social programs and investments. This amounts to billions. Thank you, USA. In the years since WWII, American presence and cold war defeat of the USSR, and the blossoming of the EEC and EU, a large military is not as necessary as it once was in Europe.

Well, that was good of us to help them on their feet, as well as China. I'm sure that will reward us with opportunities. Well, investment opportunities at least.

http://news.yahoo.com/u-trade-gap-china-cost-2-7-million-180352879--finance.html?_esi=1

Overheal

There are still some systemic issues that will take decades to eliminate before you can ever truly say it's not a problem. The Tuskegee Experiment comes to mind; The Kreiger Lead Paint study; etc. and those just come from medicinal background, that I happened to scrawl across as part of some coursework. Probability says theres more where that came from.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

This thread has nothing to do with libertarianism, by any stretch of the imagination. Please stay on topic.

Fr Tod Umptious

Interesting topic OP

It would be interesting to see what this individuals like Peggy Joesph think of Obama 4 years on.
Does she still have to worry about putting gas in her car and paying her mortgage ?
How are gas prices in 2012 compared to 2008 ?

What is also interesting is what the turnout of black voters is going to be in 2012, in 2008 blacks turned out in record numbers, somehow I doubt the numbers will be as high in 2012.

Eventhough Obama will win 99.999% of those black votes the lower turnout may affect him in swing states, plus I recall reading somewhere that when it comes to gay rights blacks tend to be very conservative, which does not fit with Obamans support for same sex marriage

jank

Thanks for the responses but I would like to limit the topic within the scope of the OP mainly the African American relationship with the state and other ethnic groups incl whites post the election of 2008.

joseph brand

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sure the country was fine when Bush left. :rolleyes:

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[15] due to decreasing tax rates and two unpaid wars. Federal spending under President George W. Bush remained at around 40% of GDP during his two terms in office; however, the combination of less tax revenue, two wars, a financial meltdown in 2008, the Stimulus and increased federal spending sent the public debt skyrocketing to 63% during Barack Obama's first two years in office (2009-2010). Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $15.5 trillion by February 2012,[16] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue due to the late-2000s recession and stimulus spending.

Reminds me of the way our Bertie jumped ship and left Handsome Brian to steer us into the rocks. Well it must be Cowens' fault.


Interesting graph here

Let's not forget that Romney Ryan wants to increase military spending.

Oh yeah, they also want to focus more on fossil fuels and less on renewable technologies, which, apart from being cleaner, require more employees. But the Koch brothers aren't interested in that, obviously.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has unveiled his official energy plan. Not surprisingly, wind power - and all forms of renewable energy - are conspicuously absent from the former Massachusetts governor's strategy, which focuses heavily on oil and gas development and expansion.

The foundation of Romney's energy plan is his goal to achieve energy independence by 2020. Yet wind energy plays a meager - if not non-existent - role in reaching that objective.

Fr Tod Umptious

^^^. And what does this have to do with African Americans ?

joseph brand

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

^^^. And what does this have to do with African Americans ?

Nothing I suppose.

I don't think it's an important issue. I can't imagine any black voters supporting Romney, (unless they do so on religious grounds). Obama has them 'in the bag'.

Have their lives improved since he's been in power? I really don't know. Not being shipped off to fight Iran (which Romney will want to do) and being looked after by Obamacare are not to be sniffed at.

He hasn't given them all jobs, but that's because the US economy is in the toilet because of the rich white man.

Had Obama taken office after Clinton, it'd be a different story altogether.

Fr Tod Umptious

I think it's far too early to tell what the effect the election of Obama will have on the African American population, it will probably take years to filter down, if there is anything to filter down at all.

Today your financial background and family background has as much to do with ones ability to attain high office as does race.
I think Clinton is the only recent president I recall that came from a somewhat modest home. Obama went to private school, the Bush's were very well connected, even going back to the Kennedy's, Joe Snr was ambassador to the UK during the war.
Conde. Rice's parents were a teacher and church minister.
Colin Powell it seems did come from modest beginnings but his military career helped him in his later political life.

A child for a black lawyer or college professor from Cambridge MA has as good a chance of success in politics as do the children of white layers or professors from Cambridge MA.

Obama's presidency may however draw more African American's to politics and hopefully keep them interested beyond his term in office whether that be 4 or 8 years.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes - if the money is reinvested in infrastructure (Leading to job creation) education and inner city redevelopment. In fact, such investment would lead to greater output in the long term, reducing social problems and creating that idyllic nordic style utopia us crusties get so wide eyed at the thought of.

However, since the tax system inordinately benefits the wealthy and upper middle classes, and since America insists on keeping a huge ground forces army (An anachronism in the modern age), that debt will continue to grow. So in a way, yes, the debt is going to hurt poor people in the long run, but almost entirely because of the corporatist military industrial complex that has ruined American national finances for decades.

Chuck Stone

Amerika wrote: »

As a member of the Tea Party... I can say with confidence this is plain BS!

Because your personal experience is akin to a large sample longitudinal study on inter-racial attitudes in the US?

Did someone spike your tea at the party?

Overheal

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Because your personal experience is akin to a large sample longitudinal study on inter-racial attitudes in the US?

Did someone spike your tea at the party?

A large sample longitudinal study on the Tea Party?

/:|

And, is there such a study you have access to?

jank

jank wrote: »

Will it mark the end of the struggle for equal rights and opportunity where a new generation of African Americans will rise up to fulfill its true potential and break generations being stuck in a poverty trap?

I doubt it, no more so than among other races.

Chuck Stone

Overheal wrote: »

A large sample longitudinal study on the Tea Party?

His claim that 'this is BS' in response to another post about social mobility.