Quantcast

Racism Explained

Allbiz - PWCM - JLA 2012/08/25 14:01:36
Related Topics: Racism

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Divided States of America 2012/11/13 02:08:15
    Divided States of America
    +1
    This is funny!!!!
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/10/27 15:45:05
    Kaleokualoha
    +2
    The definition of "racism" is rather simple but often misunderstood:

    [QUOTE]
    rac·ism   [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
    END QUOTE http://dictionary.reference.c... ]

    It is still a major problem, as illustrated by the fact that most Americans still harbor prejudice against blacks. Further, Republicans are more prejudiced than Democrats:

    [QUOTE]
    AP poll: Majority harbor prejudice against blacks

    Oct 27, 4:13 AM (ET)

    By SONYA ROSS and JENNIFER AGIESTA

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.

    Those views could cost President Barack Obama votes as he tries for re-election, the survey found, though the effects are mitigated by some Americans' more favorable views of blacks.

    Rac...



























































    The definition of "racism" is rather simple but often misunderstood:

    [QUOTE]
    rac·ism   [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
    noun
    1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
    2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
    3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
    END QUOTE http://dictionary.reference.c... ]

    It is still a major problem, as illustrated by the fact that most Americans still harbor prejudice against blacks. Further, Republicans are more prejudiced than Democrats:

    [QUOTE]
    AP poll: Majority harbor prejudice against blacks

    Oct 27, 4:13 AM (ET)

    By SONYA ROSS and JENNIFER AGIESTA

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Racial attitudes have not improved in the four years since the United States elected its first black president, an Associated Press poll finds, as a slight majority of Americans now express prejudice toward blacks whether they recognize those feelings or not.

    Those views could cost President Barack Obama votes as he tries for re-election, the survey found, though the effects are mitigated by some Americans' more favorable views of blacks.

    Racial prejudice has increased slightly since 2008 whether those feelings were measured using questions that explicitly asked respondents about racist attitudes, or through an experimental test that measured implicit views toward race without asking questions about that topic directly.

    In all, 51 percent of Americans now express explicit anti-black attitudes, compared with 48 percent in a similar 2008 survey. When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56 percent, up from 49 percent during the last presidential election. In both tests, the share of Americans expressing pro-black attitudes fell.


    "As much as we'd hope the impact of race would decline over time ... it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago," said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey.

    Most Americans expressed anti-Hispanic sentiments, too. In an AP survey done in 2011, 52 percent of non-Hispanic whites expressed anti-Hispanic attitudes. That figure rose to 57 percent in the implicit test. The survey on Hispanics had no past data for comparison.

    The AP surveys were conducted with researchers from Stanford University, the University of Michigan and NORC at the University of Chicago.

    Experts on race said they were not surprised by the findings.

    "We have this false idea that there is uniformity in progress and that things change in one big step. That is not the way history has worked," said Jelani Cobb, professor of history and director of the Institute for African-American Studies at the University of Connecticut. "When we've seen progress, we've also seen backlash."

    Obama himself has tread cautiously on the subject of race, but many African-Americans have talked openly about perceived antagonism toward them since Obama took office. As evidence, they point to events involving police brutality or cite bumper stickers, cartoons and protest posters that mock the president as a lion or a monkey, or lynch him in effigy.

    "Part of it is growing polarization within American society," said Fredrick Harris, director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University. "The last Democrat in the White House said we had to have a national discussion about race. There's been total silence around issues of race with this president. But, as you see, whether there is silence, or an elevation of the discussion of race, you still have polarization. It will take more generations, I suspect, before we eliminate these deep feelings."

    Overall, the survey found that by virtue of racial prejudice, Obama could lose 5 percentage points off his share of the popular vote in his Nov. 6 contest against Republican challenger Mitt Romney. However, Obama also stands to benefit from a 3 percentage point gain due to pro-black sentiment, researchers said. Overall, that means an estimated net loss of 2 percentage points due to anti-black attitudes.

    The poll finds that racial prejudice is not limited to one group of partisans. Although Republicans were more likely than Democrats to express racial prejudice in the questions measuring explicit racism (79 percent among Republicans compared with 32 percent among Democrats), the implicit test found little difference between the two parties. That test showed a majority of both Democrats and Republicans held anti-black feelings (55 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans), as did about half of political independents (49 percent).

    Obama faced a similar situation in 2008, the survey then found.

    The Associated Press developed the surveys to measure sensitive racial views in several ways and repeated those studies several times between 2008 and 2012.

    The explicit racism measures asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people. In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly,""hardworking,""vio... and "lazy," described blacks, whites and Hispanics.

    The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character. The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.

    Results from those questions were analyzed with poll takers' ages, partisan beliefs, views on Obama and Romney and other factors, which allowed researchers to predict the likelihood that people would vote for either Obama or Romney. Those models were then used to estimate the net impact of each factor on the candidates' support.

    All the surveys were conducted online. Other research has shown that poll takers are more likely to share unpopular attitudes when they are filling out a survey using a computer rather than speaking with an interviewer. Respondents were randomly selected from a nationally representative panel maintained by GfK Custom Research.

    Overall results from each survey have a margin of sampling error of approximately plus or minus 4 percentage points. The most recent poll, measuring anti-black views, was conducted Aug. 30 to Sept. 11.

    Andra Gillespie, an Emory University political scientist who studies race-neutrality among black politicians, contrasted the situation to that faced by the first black mayors elected in major U.S. cities, the closest parallel to Obama's first-black situation. Those mayors, she said, typically won about 20 percent of the white vote in their first races, but when seeking reelection they enjoyed greater white support presumably because "the whites who stayed in the cities ... became more comfortable with a black executive."

    "President Obama's election clearly didn't change those who appear to be sort of hard-wired folks with racial resentment," she said.

    Negative racial attitudes can manifest in policy, noted Alan Jenkins, an assistant solicitor general during the Clinton administration and now executive director of the Opportunity Agenda think tank.

    "That has very real circumstances in the way people are treated by police, the way kids are treated by teachers, the way home seekers are treated by landlords and real estate agents," Jenkins said.

    Hakeem Jeffries, a New York state assemblyman and candidate for a congressional seat being vacated by a fellow black Democrat, called it troubling that more progress on racial attitudes had not been made. Jeffries has fought a New York City police program of "stop and frisk" that has affected mostly blacks and Latinos but which supporters contend is not racially focused.

    "I do remain cautiously optimistic that the future of America bends toward the side of increased racial tolerance," Jeffries said. "We've come a long way, but clearly these results demonstrate there's a long way to go."
    [END QUOTE http://apnews1.iwon.com//arti... ]

    Further, another poll revealed that 60% of Mississippi Republicans still have problems with interracial marriage:

    [QUOTE]
    That means about 60 percent of these Southern Republicans are hearkening back to a time--1958 to be exact--when the American mainstream overwhelmingly looked down on people with different shades of skin getting married.

    For some context, in 2007 Gallup conducted a nationwide survey finding that 77 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage and only 17 percent explicitly disapproved. At the time, Gallup pointed out that in 1958 only 4 percent of Americans favored interracial marriage and that as late as 1994 less than half of Americans approved. But as their chart shows, support had been rising rapidly ever since.
    [END QUOTE http://www.theatlanticwire.co... ]

    Up until the GOP's "Southern Strategy," the GOP was more progressive on civil rights (see http://www.boston.com/news/na... )

    "I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. That is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant." - Martin Luther King Jr. (1929 - 1968)
    (more)
  • Claybern 2012/09/03 01:44:48
    Claybern
    +1
    This is old and very funny.
  • Libertys Martyr 2012/09/01 10:07:39
    Libertys Martyr
    +1
    "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."
    -Ron Paul
  • 3414503 2012/09/01 05:58:03
  • Will_The_Kid 2012/08/27 13:54:51
    Will_The_Kid
    +2
    I love this video
  • Sissum71*AFCL* 2012/08/27 04:18:49
    Sissum71*AFCL*
    +2
    ROTFL!!
  • golem48 2012/08/26 20:08:57
    golem48
    +2
    0bama and his mad minions..
  • Mark P. 2012/08/26 18:59:51
    Mark P.
    +2
    True, but funny as hell.
  • Frank 2012/08/26 18:23:57
    Frank
    +1
    Racism is when you believe all people are not created eqaul.....
  • Deep007 2012/08/26 17:12:33
    Deep007
    +1
    LMAO....
  • captainquiggle 2012/08/26 17:08:35 (edited)
    captainquiggle
    +2
    We do know that 14.7 million people were on Food Stamps under George Bush, right? 14.2 million under Obama. So to state otherwise, that's not only a lie, but one that's told only to reaffirm the stereotype that a black president is "redistributing the wealth" as some sort of reparations for Slavery. It's inherently racist and wrong to associate Obama with being the Food Stamp President.



    Trent Lott being trotted out in this is funny as well. To try and place Thurmond and Byrd in the same slot as racists is fine, but Byrd was an apologist and knew he was wrong in what he did, while Thurmond did no such thing, even in the words of his own bi-racial daughter.





    All in all, I hope that guy votes for Obama because he's not racist and doesn't believe that the policies of Mitt Romney's (that would endanger women, the elderly, and gay rights) should become the law of the land.
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/26 18:38:55
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    +3
    I don't know where you get you information from but the number of Americans receiving food stamps at the end of 2011 according to the Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition 46,224,722. Not 14.2. At the end of Bush's presidency, 28.2 million Amwricans were receiving food stamps. Your claim that it was 14.2 million under Obama is a blatant lie.

    http://www.trivisonno.com/foo...
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/27 13:55:11
    captainquiggle
    +2
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/...

    "Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it's also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

    But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

    And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.

    It's possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.

    Update, Feb. 5: RevisedUSDA datareleased in February showed the downward trend continued for a second straight month in November, when the number of persons getting food stamps wa...


    http://www.usatoday.com/news/...

    "Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it's also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

    But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

    And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama's time in office than during Bush's.

    It's possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.

    Update, Feb. 5: RevisedUSDA datareleased in February showed the downward trend continued for a second straight month in November, when the number of persons getting food stamps was 134,418 fewer than it had been at the peak."


    So, to call Obama the Food Stamp President IS WRONG.
    (more)
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/27 14:48:02
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    +1
    Obviously, the math used by the hard left leaning usatoday.com group is somewhat fuzzy.

    They are trying to make it look as though there are now less people receiving food stamps. However, in their article, they even admit that the number increased by 14.2 million. So how is an increase less?

    Then they cherry-pick a specific time and compare the number at that time to the current number. No matter how you look at it, Obama has increased the food stamp roles by more than 70% over Bush.

    And we're supposed to believe them just like we're supposed to believe that Obama has created 8 million new jobs.

    No matter how you look at it, Obama has increased the food stamp roles by more than 70% over Bush. So, to call Obama the Food Stamp President, is letting him off easy.
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/27 15:45:08
    captainquiggle
    +1
    I guess you don't see how 14.2 and lessening is LESS than 14.7, but that's not because of the writing.

    It's not cherry-picking when you look at the increase under each president. It's over-generalizing to assume that the whole is the result of one part.

    Obama never said he created 8 million new jobs. He's created over 4 million, though, and that's just factual, but to talk about that would be to get away from the topic of who saw a higher increase of Food Stamp recipients under their term. The answer, any way you want to slice it, was George W. Bush.

    If you want to talk about jobs, we can do that, but there's no debate on who saw the highest increase of FS recipients under their tenure.

    14.7 is larger than 14.2 and declining. Sorry, but that's simple stuff you're not trying to understand because it makes your point look insipid to say the least.
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/27 16:03:00
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/27 16:17:44
    captainquiggle
    +1
    What? You are kidding, right?

    You're telling me that Obama didn't enable you to "Recall" your workers? OK. Thanks. I guess you just took a huge loss in hiring back those people and went out of business, right? Oh, you didn't? Thank Obama, guy. He created your ability to do such.

    And, when you refuse to work with the government, you should be fined.

    You would like to not look at the increase in FS under each president, because that would show you who really "put the most people on FS in American history," instead of "who's sitting in the office when the most amount of people are on FS." It shows how you'd like to spin things to make Obama look like he's the worst, when that's not factual, to say the least.

    The next time you hand me an orange and call it an apple, I'll call it like it is. You're too dumb to know your spin won't work on smart people.
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/27 16:26:09
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    +1
    Sorry, I can't talk with someone who's stuck on stupid.
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/27 17:00:59
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/27 16:41:17
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/27 17:03:54
    captainquiggle
    +1
    Okay, please tell me how you were able to recall workers, if the economy didn't enable you to do such? Did you turn a profit this year?

    Don't kid yourself that Obama had nothing to do with it.

    You don't like the government? That's none of my concern, but don't sit here and tell me the private sector didn't benefit from this current administration.

    You're the liar, here.
  • nerak611 captain... 2012/11/12 02:37:00
    nerak611
    +2
    He's is the one stuck on stupid. He can't refute your facts so he calls you stupid!
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/27 16:15:40
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    Again, I guess you don't see I wasn't talking about percentage of increases but the total ni,ber of recipients.

    However, if you wish to continue your argument based on something I wasn't argiuing, go right ahead. After all, if you stick with facts, you know you automatically lose,
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/27 16:20:44
    captainquiggle
    +1
    Again, you WOULD LOVE TO TALK ABOUT TOTALS and blame the TOTALS on the PART the president is actually responsible for creating, right? That's totally logical.

    I don't have to base my argument on what you were talking about as much as show that your argument is baseless.

    Factually, we both agree I'm correct. I'll agree that more people are on FS now, but the increase of people under Obama is still smaller than that under GWB. Why was GWB not the FS president? As he had the LARGEST INCREASE of FS recipients in his care IN HISTORY.
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/27 16:34:48
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    So based on your analogy, Obama added almost as many to the FS program in less than 2 years than Bush did in all of m8 years.

    And for that you're proud of your president? Oh swait, I'll bet you get food stamps. Now I see why you're so argumentative.
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/27 17:05:53
    captainquiggle
    +1
    No, that would be in 3 years, he's almost added as many in one point in time, but the numbers have been progressively declining. I guess you can't imagine an increase in FS recipients when there were 4 million jobs lost in the first 6 months of his presidency, though.

    You sound like a smart guy. Try thinking.

    I don't get FS, by the way, but thanks for not trying to think.
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/27 19:20:04 (edited)
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    Oh, so that changes everything if it was 3 years instead of 2 that Obama added almost as many as Bush in 8. Now that just makes everything so much better.

    The total job loss from Feb thru July of 2009 was 3.1 million...not 4 million.

    Your credibility is destroyed. Our conversation is ended.
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/27 19:33:06
    captainquiggle
    I don't know what you don't understand about "steadily declining" but you need to find out what that means and soak it up.

    Oh, it's that 4 million were LOST in 6 months UNDER BUSH, and right before Obama took office. Thanks. Bush destroyed the economy. Then 6 months more of loss thanks to Bush failed policies and slow recovery led to over 4.3 million more LOST in 13 months.

    Thanks, for pointing that out.

    Yet, you can't understand how that might contribute to there being more people on FS than before? OK.

    I guess there's not much to talk about with you. You don't understand economics, for one, nor how to "destroy credibility."

    Enjoy your fantasy land.
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/28 15:28:58
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    I'm not as familiar with the Bush policies as you seem to be. Could you please list the Bush policies that were failures causing the economic crash.

    All I know about the Bush economy is during the 8 years of the Bush presidency the lowest annual unemployment rate was 4.61% in 2007, the highest annual unemployment rate was 5.76% in 2008, during Bush’s 8 years as President.

    Another record of economic growth is continuous increase in GDP. Far from the progressive whining about the "failed economic policies of the Bush administration,” Economic growth under Bush, the U.S. output expanded faster than most advanced economies since 2000.

    The IMF reports that real U.S. GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008. Bush left to Obama an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from Bill Clinton.

    To believe you were not better off under Bush than you are under the current leadership from the White House, one would be required to live in the same parallel universe of Nancy Pelosi where facts conflict with reality.

    Can there be any doubt that the majority of Democrats are distancing themselves from Pelosi, Reid and Obama?

    Obama is the U.S. President after all, so there is no need to mention his 40 plus consecutive months of unemployment at 9.6% rising to 9.8% an...











    I'm not as familiar with the Bush policies as you seem to be. Could you please list the Bush policies that were failures causing the economic crash.

    All I know about the Bush economy is during the 8 years of the Bush presidency the lowest annual unemployment rate was 4.61% in 2007, the highest annual unemployment rate was 5.76% in 2008, during Bush’s 8 years as President.

    Another record of economic growth is continuous increase in GDP. Far from the progressive whining about the "failed economic policies of the Bush administration,” Economic growth under Bush, the U.S. output expanded faster than most advanced economies since 2000.

    The IMF reports that real U.S. GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.2% over the period 2001-2008. Bush left to Obama an economy 19% larger than the one he inherited from Bill Clinton.

    To believe you were not better off under Bush than you are under the current leadership from the White House, one would be required to live in the same parallel universe of Nancy Pelosi where facts conflict with reality.

    Can there be any doubt that the majority of Democrats are distancing themselves from Pelosi, Reid and Obama?

    Obama is the U.S. President after all, so there is no need to mention his 40 plus consecutive months of unemployment at 9.6% rising to 9.8% and leveling off at 8.3%, lets “blame Bush.”

    In deference to Obama there is no need to mention his attempted take over of the entire health care industry, his desire for international transfer of wealth through refuted carbon trading schemes, taking over banks, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers, or his abysmal handling of the gulf oil crisis.

    He of course completely shut down drilling while B.P. and other U.S. companies moved to the waters of other countries to survive handomely, while China and Cuba drill sixty miles off of U.S. shores.

    God forbid that the media would have told the tax payers that 1/3 of the repaid TARP were immediately sent to the EU zone in another failed attempt to stave of economic collapse happening in Europe while we continue to struggle.

    Is there any wonder members of the FED refused to tell congress where the TARP money was spent?

    Yes. This is certainly "Hope and Change" but as the voters are now showing, it's not at all the change they hoped for.

    I'm anxiously awaiting that list.
    (more)
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/28 16:48:13
    captainquiggle
    "…it is apparent that had Mr. Bush reduced budget deficits rather than enlarging them through tax cuts and spending increases for wars, pork-barrel projects and a new entitlement program (Medicare Part D), the federal government would have had more fiscal ammunition available to fight the recession that President Obama inherited from President Bush.

    Because of the large deficits Mr. Bush bequeathed Mr. Obama – on Jan. 8, 2009, the C.B.O. projected a deficit for the year of $1.3 trillion that didn’t include any Obama policies – Congress was deeply reluctant to enact a stimulus larger than $787 billion, even though President Obama’s economic advisers thought that one at least twice as large was necessary to turn the economy around. The opposition of every Republican to the 2009 stimulus was a major factor in its inadequate size." -- Bruce Bartlett, New York Times

    There's a short deal about Bush Policy that helped usher in the recession and the problems with the right solutions.

    You can talk about Bush's unemployment rates, but what did he leave the country with? A 7.8 percent unemployment rate.

    Let's look at GDP. In 2008 it was at -.4. In 2009, continuing many Bush Policy, it was at -3.5. 2010? Up 3.0. 2011? Up 1.7. What was it in 2007? 1.9. I think the GDP is heading right back ...










    "…it is apparent that had Mr. Bush reduced budget deficits rather than enlarging them through tax cuts and spending increases for wars, pork-barrel projects and a new entitlement program (Medicare Part D), the federal government would have had more fiscal ammunition available to fight the recession that President Obama inherited from President Bush.

    Because of the large deficits Mr. Bush bequeathed Mr. Obama – on Jan. 8, 2009, the C.B.O. projected a deficit for the year of $1.3 trillion that didn’t include any Obama policies – Congress was deeply reluctant to enact a stimulus larger than $787 billion, even though President Obama’s economic advisers thought that one at least twice as large was necessary to turn the economy around. The opposition of every Republican to the 2009 stimulus was a major factor in its inadequate size." -- Bruce Bartlett, New York Times

    There's a short deal about Bush Policy that helped usher in the recession and the problems with the right solutions.

    You can talk about Bush's unemployment rates, but what did he leave the country with? A 7.8 percent unemployment rate.

    Let's look at GDP. In 2008 it was at -.4. In 2009, continuing many Bush Policy, it was at -3.5. 2010? Up 3.0. 2011? Up 1.7. What was it in 2007? 1.9. I think the GDP is heading right back to pre-recession rates.


    Once again, when you want to talk about high unemployment, you must remember that, even after the largest recession in modern history, he's held it to half a percent of what the Bush administration left it at.

    Yes, no need to mention that Obama is going to make sure every American has health care, by dropping coverage costs and extending benefits for seniors. Lets not talk about how he saved the Auto Industry, or regulated the banks. Let's not talk about the 8 oil spills in the last 4 years, which might give someone cause for concern to think that any oil drilling is GOOD NEWS, and don't forget that domestic production of oil is the highest it's been since 2003.

    Yes, God forbid we, as a country, remember we are part of a global economy.

    Your issues are coming fast and furious, but you can't seem to stay on any one point for long.

    Care to pick one?
    (more)
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/28 17:55:12
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    The fact of the matter is that GDP has grown a total of only 2.4% over Obama's entire reign.

    Based on the pending recession that could hit as early as Jan 2013, it is predicted that the GDP for 2013 will be less than 1%.

    I don't know where you copy/pasted your reply from, but just the mention of Part D shows that it is a flawed source. The Part D program is not an entitlement. It is voluntary and so far has been a paid-for program with no negative effect on the budget.

    Part D costs per beneficiary have lower lower than projected, This mostly reflects a slowdown in per-capita prescription spending throughout the U.S. health care system. Actual net Part D costs per beneficiary in 2010 were 22 percent lower than the Medicare trustees originally projected and 16 percent lower than CBO had estimated. But overall prescription drug spending per capita in 2010, as measured in the National Health Expenditures estimates, was 35 percent lower than the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) projected when Congress enacted the drug benefit.

    Drug spending growth declined unexpectedly — both in Medicare and systemwide — because major drugs went off-patent, fewer costly new blockbuster drugs came to market, and use of lower-cost generic drugs increased substantially, ac...
    The fact of the matter is that GDP has grown a total of only 2.4% over Obama's entire reign.

    Based on the pending recession that could hit as early as Jan 2013, it is predicted that the GDP for 2013 will be less than 1%.

    I don't know where you copy/pasted your reply from, but just the mention of Part D shows that it is a flawed source. The Part D program is not an entitlement. It is voluntary and so far has been a paid-for program with no negative effect on the budget.

    Part D costs per beneficiary have lower lower than projected, This mostly reflects a slowdown in per-capita prescription spending throughout the U.S. health care system. Actual net Part D costs per beneficiary in 2010 were 22 percent lower than the Medicare trustees originally projected and 16 percent lower than CBO had estimated. But overall prescription drug spending per capita in 2010, as measured in the National Health Expenditures estimates, was 35 percent lower than the actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) projected when Congress enacted the drug benefit.

    Drug spending growth declined unexpectedly — both in Medicare and systemwide — because major drugs went off-patent, fewer costly new blockbuster drugs came to market, and use of lower-cost generic drugs increased substantially, according to the CMS Office of the Actuary (which helps prepare the Medicare trustees' reports and conducts the estimates of National Health Expenditures). Private industry analysts agree. The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics found that as more generics became available, the average daily treatment costs of the ten classes of drugs most used by Medicare beneficiaries fell by about one-third between 2006 and 2010.
    (more)
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/28 18:53:59
    captainquiggle
    No, the point is that it was given to him at a negative rate and he's turned it around to almost pre-recession rates.

    That's the point.

    As for the New York Times being a flawed source, that's great for you to believe. Enjoy that one.

    Guess what you have to have in order to get Medicare Part D? Medicare. How adding another level of entitlements onto already existing ones isn't adding a burden to the budget is beyond me. Increasing entitlement spending imposes greater costs on the taxpayer.

    If Medicare wasn't a problem and Part D didn't add to it, there'd be no huge call by the Right to turn it into a voucher program. It's obviously getting larger and larger and Bush just added to it.
  • Allbiz ... captain... 2012/08/28 19:13:21
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    I love it when a liberal gets hit with facts they always respond with No, that's not the point.

    I hit the point right on the head.

    The Part D program under Bush was a good program. Obama ruined by eliminating the donut hole and tripling the costs to the government.

    And the point is because Obama changed it (there's that change) into a deficit adding program, the Republicans want to return it to a self- sufficient, paid-for program like it has been since Bush made it law.
  • captain... Allbiz ... 2012/08/28 19:46:33
    captainquiggle
    I love it when people try to spin the facts to mean things they don't.

    The GDP is well into recovery. It's not this huge falling line you tried to portray it as. Let's not get into the projections that show it to be back to normal by 2013; that doesn't matter. You argument that the GDP growth is horrible is laughable.

    Again, here's where facts ruined your argument. Welfare was always getting bigger and bigger, and Bush just added to that. Now, the GOP wants to turn it into a voucher system. Obviously, they didn't really care for Medicare Part D, now did they?

    Please explain how it's a self-sufficient, paid-for program, when it's an entitlement added onto an existing entitlement that everyone understands is growing at such a rate it won't be anything but the huge drain on the national budget, which it was BEFORE BUSH ADDED TO IT.

    Your arguments are just plain spin.
  • hot4teacher 2012/08/26 16:02:57
    hot4teacher
    +4
    Racism was a problem, now it's an excuse.
  • RaRaKitteh 2012/08/26 13:57:47
  • Wahvlvke 2012/08/26 13:02:56
    Wahvlvke
    +2
    What can you say about "liberal logic"?
  • TasselLady 2012/08/26 12:46:39
    TasselLady
    +1
    Here's what a racist is:

    1. Somebody who doesn't like someone because of their skin color.
    2. Somebody who doesn't like somebody because of their religious background.
    3. Somebody who doesn't like somebody because of the ethnic background.
    4. Somebody who doesn't like somebody because they are different from THEM.
  • dragon88 TasselLady 2012/08/26 19:48:51
    dragon88
    +3
    Actually its a word used as a weapon to silence other people.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 13 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/04/20 16:12:17

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals