Are you better off now? Life after Obama

1. 61

   tobey100posted 13 years ago

   Maybe yes, maybe no.  After reviewing the statistics released by the Census Bureau it's hard to imagine how rabid Obamites can still sing his praises. 
   
   Based on the 2009 figures (note: this being 2011 it always amazes me the Feds can't manage to produce current stats)  the average median wealth (not income, wealth ie: assets) of a white family was roughly $113,000.  The average median wealth of a black family was roughly $5,700.  That's a 20:1 ratio.  If that sounds as bad to you as it does to me consider this.  Before Obama the ratio was 7:1.  Bad but not as bad.
   
   True, you can make statistics say whatever you like but if nothing else, these tell us without a doubt who suffers most in the current employment crisis.  As my oldest son says, "These poor folks are losing their assets".  I do not believe in distribution of wealth.  I believe in keeping what you earn to spend, save or donate as you like.  I also believe in equal opportunity for all.
   
   This President is destroying the very 'folks' he promised to take care of if elected.  He has done the opposite by any measuring stick you care to choose.  In the words of Paul Krugman, "What evidence do we have that Obama knows what he's doing?"  Krugman, by the way, is a staunch Obama supporter.
   
   We don't need more speeches.  We don't need more rhetoric.  We need more opportunity for all, especially those on the verge of losing everything.  We need Washington to get out of the way and let us do what we do best.  You and I make this country what it is or what it will be.  We are the worker bees.  We built this hive.  It's ours!  It doesn't belong to Washington.  It doesn't belong to any elected official, not even the President.

   replyreport
2. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 13 years ago

   Here is a link to the full report on the Pew Research Center website:  http://pewsocialtrends.org/2011/07/26/w … hispanics/
   
   First, regarding your amazement that "feds can't produce current stats," it takes time, money, and manpower to properly collect and analyze data.  We're just past the mid-point of 2011; 2009 data is quite current.
   
   Second, you are right that blacks have been disproportionately affected by the recession.  However, since Obama had only been in office for one year when the data was collected, your conclusion that "this President is destroying the very 'folks' he promised to take care of if elected" cannot rationally be supported or refuted by this data.  In addition, your statement implies that the 'folks' Obama promised to take care of were black folks; I don't recall Obama ever saying that and I challenge you to provide evidence that he did.
   
   Lastly, the definition of rhetoric is "the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast."  Your post is a great example of the very thing you say we don't need.

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So in 2013 we should find out how bad he really screwed them.
      
      Sweet.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago

   IT doesn't matter if you're better off, Obama had little to nothing to do with it.
   
   Just a refresher: Obama hasn't ended a single war, he's actually started a new war or two, Gitmo is still open, and he signed the continuation of the Patriot Act.
   
   Out with him.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yep, in many ways, he's just to the right of Richard Nixon.

      replyreport
   2. 65

      BristolBoyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Which two wars has he started?

      replyreport
      1. 65

         BristolBoyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I say this as a purely casual English person - I would have thought us English would have heard of these two wars he had started using the US military.  It can't be the war in Libya as that is a civil war and started before the US got involved  and in fact before the US got involved other countries did eg France and the UK (a bit like WWI and WWII in that respect!).

         replyreport
4. 60

   Moderndayslaveposted 13 years ago

   Things were better in the 90's, sorry but so much for progress.During the bush years everyone was cashing in on their house,I knew they were screwing themselves.Today with commodities deregulation,the traders are getting rich and screwing the rest of the world with inflated prices for no good reason except greed. All BS aside ,the only terrorist attack on American soil actually happened on Bush's watch,makes me wonder???

   replyreport
   1. 62

      Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      "the only terrorist attack on American soil actually happened on Bush's watch,makes me wonder???"
      
      Know what makes me wonder?
      
      How you could be so wrong but think you're so right?
      
      I guess now should be the time to tell you that the attack on the World Trade Center ON 09/11/01 was the SECOND time it had been attacked.
      
      History, its a wonderful thing.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Moderndayslaveposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Second time but many problems with OFFICIAL story? Ok you got me they blew up the garage.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Jim Hunterposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The only problems are with whack-jobs who can't think for themselves.
            
            Can you say Alex Jones?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Moderndayslaveposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Who?

               replyreport
5. 59

   dutchman1951posted 13 years ago

   I think we are all holding status quo. Just floating waiting for the next idiotic shoe to drop.
   
   ex-pat is looking real right now!

   replyreport
6. 73

   AEvansposted 13 years ago

   Where did they get those stats from? I believe we are all floating in this boat together waiting for the tide to come in. The balance in that ratio is off

   replyreport