Why Black Americans Vote Unquestioningly for Obama
To be Black in america, there is a notion that white people do not understand. Although we do not live in Black communities, like Asians, Italians, Jews, Mormons etc. do, we pressure each other to act, behave and think alike. The worst of this pressure is political pressure. This pressure is exerted upon us by preachers, leaders and the media that is bought and paid for by the Democrat party.
With the advent of the internet and an endless amount of information, I see no reason why Black people should vote for not only Democrats, but precisely Obama.
Obama has single-handedly impoverished more Black people than any other president since Lincoln.
- promised illegal aliens no persecution, so that they can continue to compete for low end jobs Black americans desperately need right now, A.K.A. the current depression
- extended NAFTA which depresses the mexican economy, creating more of the same problem we already have with mexicans looking for a better life in america
- handed down new policies of "don't ask don't tell" for mexicans not needing to show proof of residency to obtain welfare and other benefits they have never contributed taxes to
- received the largest campaign contribution from wallstreets own, monolithic financial firm Goldman Sachs
- railroaded the country and congress into signing the obamacare bill, after failing the first time, after americans called in droves telling their representatives to not sign for it
- not only extended but expanded the patriot act
- not only extended but expanded the campaign in afghanistan, even after the false flag of "killing Bin Ladin" the last boogie-man
- promised to lower payroll taxes for americans, but raised all other income taxes for a net tax INCREASE on everyone's paychecks
- oversaw the largest wealth depletion amongst Blacks than ANY OTHER PRESIDENT EVER, IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE COUNTRY
That's Obama
There is no defense for him. It galls me to no end that my own Black people defend him. They listen to what he says, but do not pay attention to WHAT HE DOES.
I'm not a republican, but facts are facts: Blacks have ALWAYS done better under republican adminstrations. However, the Black leaders keep telling their sheep that democrat is the way to go, although democrats have torn down what little games Blacks have made under republican administrations.
It is maddening that the Black middle class votes democrat, while the evidence is plain as day: they have done better under republicans than democrats.
It is also plain as day that more Black families have slipped from middle to lower-class under Obama than under any other president. And, he has said time and time again that he is "not a Black president and will do NOTHING specifically to help Black people"... BUT THANKS FOR ALL THE VOTES MORONS.
Conclusion
If Black people want a fighting chance, they should vote Libertarian. Most of the social programs that the poor Blacks subsist on, do so at an egregious price, the Black family.
You cannot be on public assistance and have an intact family. A woman on assistance has to get rid of her husband, fiance, boyfriend, in order to receive assistance.
However, that being said, a minority of Blacks are even on assistance. The media hypes and portrays Blacks as being nearly overwhelmingly impoverished. It is not the case.
Most Blacks are:
educated
middle-class
employed
Losing the social programs would not hurt millions of Black people. With the money that we would save in taxes, we could go back to helping the poor directly, like we did for 150 years in this country.
When discussing destroying or removing welfare, most arguments center on the notion that ONLY government can help the poor. The truth is that, even with welfare, most poor people are still helped by charities, not the government.
Charities are now hurting because Obama and his administration reduced the amount you could claim off of your taxes that you donate to charity.
Also, the Black middle-class do not start up businesses because of the tremendous road blocks in the way, and being cut off from capital via institutional racism.
Libertarians would remove most of the local and federal obstacles to starting business. Oponents love to talk about Libertarians not believing in governmental assistance, but they never bring up that government is a huge obstacle the hinders progress. This is the progress that Blacks desperately need, more than welfare.
It is common, among the American public, for the average everyday citizen to NOT educate themselves, nor double-check the facts that they hear on the news, magazines, television, internet. Most Americans struggle with jobs and working for other people, for a single source of income, to be bothered with doing anything extra to make sure they are making the right decisions day in and day out. They are shown this by their parents, generation after generation, that you simply turn on a television and accept everything that they say as factual. They are shown this by their parents, generation after generation, that you simply go to a church and accept everything the minister says, and the book he goes by, as factual, and even worse, unquestionable.
Paul Robin Krugman is an American economist, Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times
It saddens me then, when someone who is older than me, and perceives himself to be learned, that he thinks to argue something he has never studied, researched, nor took the time to dissect and fit all the pieces together to see the sinister undertones. Case in point, one such discussion occurred when a picture was presented showing the insanity of how the tremendous debt the federal government has, and the state of the economy, can be fixed by going into more debt. This fool, and I mean the term in the technical sense, proceeded to defend and argue that going into debt had nothing to do with the state of the economy and even if it did, it did not make the situation worse. He tried to defend the statement that Paul Krugman made saying, "debt killing the economy? More debt will fix that."
The house and senate create the annual spending budget for things like: military; research; welfare and its ilk; social security and its ilk; wars and 3rd party contractors; national state programs which it promptly defunds after a year or two.
They take in taxes.... wait, we'll get to the taxes last.
They are sorely underfunded for all of their concerns, to the tune of trillions of dollars. The private monopoly banks, known as the federal reserve system, LENDS them money AT INTEREST, instead of congress simply printing its own money, selling bonds, or raising capital WITHOUT INTEREST. This creates debt. This debt is created annually, to the tune of MORE interest than taxes ALONE can cover.
The taxes that the federal government then collects, goes only to pay off a PORTION of the interest it owes to the private consortium, known as the federal reserve Bank system. And why wouldn't they do this, because the population is none the wiser, because there is absolutely NO accounting for what the private bank does. All we see is a price tag, AND ITS PAID. And, they play a smoke and mirrors game to say "taxes cover everything" wink wink nudge nudge, "so we must raise taxes, because the budget has gone up". OR EVEN WORSE, "we are balancing the budget, so we must raise taxes to help *balance* it", muahahahahaha we're sneaky.
So, getting back to the original premise, that debt is horrible, let's raise the debt... either you don't know the above system exists, because if you do, then you would have to be a more sinister than the federal reserve private banks itself. You seem smart, so i'll just call you The Dastardly Mr. Beasley.
Politics is smoke and mirrors. Now you see the budget, now you don't. Voila! Presto chango, we spend trillions and no one accounts for where it comes from.
Obama the Darling of Wallstreet
I saw a video of Tony Robins, of all people... it has to be serious, for him to make an economy video, where he talks about taking everyone's money, all the "rich" people in america, sports players, movie producers, wall street moguls, corporations, oil companies and he goes down the list. And, he covers day by day of taking all of their money, not just taxes. And, when the calculation is done it still does not cover al 52 weeks, it falls short of two weeks in one year. But then, he concludes that the next year, NONE of the budget would be covered, because now you have seized all of the rich people's money. It's a very graphic example of how out of whack the debt is.
Many learned people have said, by congress simply coining its own money for 5 years, the entire debt of the US would be wiped out.5 years, that's one presidency.
No thinking man, knowing both the current system, and knowing that the debt could be wiped out, would agree that debt is bad nor would say it has NOTHING to do with the current economic DEPRESSION [ a word the government refuses to admit, despite all indicators that this is WORSE than the great depression ] [ oh and everyone is doing their part to hide the fact:
- shadow inventory of housing
- hiding true unemployment rates
- hiding business failures
- hiding stock manipulation
- hiding the real value of the USD
- hiding the 70% wealth lose across the board for all racial groups, in America
- not even acknowledging the 35% unemployment rate amongst Blacks
- hiding the Black incarceration epidemic amongst Blacks [which has single-handedly led to a 90% drop in Black wealth]
- hiding the failures of fannie and freddie
- hiding the debt owed to foreign banks
- hiding the payments going to foreign banks
- hiding the real money down a hole, going to wall street corporations [ we're talking, watchdog groups are saying 10s of trillions have already been spent, and more is being spent secretly] the real reason the federal reserve does not wish to be "audited".
• The typical American household would have paid nearly all of its income in taxes last year to balance the budget if the government used standard accounting rules to compute the deficit, a USA TODAY analysis finds
• Under those accounting practices, the government ran red ink last year equal to $42,054 per household — nearly four times the official number reported under unique rules set by Congress
• A U.S. household's median income is $49,445, the Census reports
• The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including the cost of promised retirement benefits
• Yet companies, states and local governments must include retirement commitments in financial statements, as required by federal law and private boards that set accounting rules
• The deficit was $5 trillion last year under those rules
• The official number was $1.3 trillion
• Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other retirement programs rose by $3.7 trillion in 2011, according to government actuaries, but the amount was not registered on the government's books
• The federal government calculates the deficit in a way that makes the number smaller than if standard accounting rules were followed (in trillions)
• Social Security had the biggest financial slide
• The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover
• That's $9.5 trillion more than was needed in 2004
• Deficits from 2004 to 2011 would be six times the official total of $5.6 trillion reported
• Federal debt and retiree commitments equal $561,254 per household
• By contrast, an average household owes a combined $116,057 for mortgages, car loans and other debts
• "By law, the federal government can't tell the truth," says accountant Sheila Weinberg of the Chicago-based
The big difference between the official deficit and standard accounting: Congress exempts itself from including cost of retirement perks.
Conclusion
So in essence, until we can get the government to use real math, real numbers, reveal the true hurt that is going on, we cannot even start to have a dialogue of how to fix it. For example, if we base a set policy to fix $1 trillion of debt, but then we find at the end of the fix that it was actually $16 trillion, we almost did absolutely nothing with the fix.
And that is the problem with the Obama presidency in a nutshell. He constantly says how he is saving us money, or lowering our taxes. But, the problem is he's raising it in other areas far higher than it ever was to begin with.
We see this over and over in all of his policies. He promised to remove the troops from the "wars". But, he actually doubled and tripled the troops in Afghanistan. I'm not going to say he is lying, but it's a lie.
