African Americans after Obama election

Have you also considered that this man is in office on a platform of change. Not only does he represent the first African American to hold the office of president but he also represents the youth, as they were a major contributing factor to his election. And he represents the hopes for all Americans for a brighter future free of useless wars and capitalist government agendas. As much as I can see where you are coming from, I would like to mention that it is the least of the issues facing this presidency and the African American people.

I am actually quite glad that they are now speaking up. They need to and they need to do so in a way that does not promote ignorance but rather understanding, cooperation and confidence. The African American community needs a leader like this.

Try to find a web-site with the Boondocks episode with Martin Luther King Jr.

It will explain what I mean by ignorance.

Let me clarify, it is more than great that the african american community is speaking out. Yet, what my issue is that this speaking out needs to be less homogenous and more diverse.
"And he represents the hopes for all Americans for a brighter future free of useless wars and capitalist government agendas"
When we say that obama is different that the rest specifically with capitalist government agendas. This is a fallacy, he is a neo-liberal, he wants to spread capitalism with the tool of american neo-imperialism. Rember Gaza? He is far from stopping wars.

the black community should speak out against the hypocrisy. Black people have a similar narrative with the palestinian people. Along with the rest of nations that globalization is hitting specifically african nations

black people need to wake up and understand obama is anther white man

He is actually a socialist more than anything and the Gaza incident was because we refused to stop Israel anymore. Besides, Gaza wasn't his choice.

If you want diversity, add some. Speak out.

Remember socialism and liberalism are on two different spectrums when it comes to political philosophy.

Before i ask my question/ tell you my observation i will give you background information.

I am in baltimore, MD, and i am currently in school. Before i go any further, i would also like to explain that i am new to baltimore city, the east coast, and urban environments.

As i was in class on thursday, i noticed that African Americans in my public policy classes are more outspoken. From a general point of view, i see that the outspoken rhetoric that is spoken is usually is based on policy that is being written by Obama. My concern is that the MAJORITY of african americans who are being outspoken are not disagreeing with the MAJORITY of Obamas administration. This can cause a few problems in my mind

1) Because african americans are following Obama, a situation that may strain Obama may be taken against the african america community.
(conflict likes this are more likely with lesser educated communities)

2) The african american community in the Unites States, has fit into an easy voting block which can be easily manipulated (in future american elections). an example that can be blown up to into poor rural white voting block

One bit of info that may back this concern up is the idea that California's gay marriage clause was overturned part way by the same african american community. They were seen picketing on election day.

- I heard this on NPR early january, i will find the transcript or w/e

3) African American will become more nationalistic, because of the history with race relations. (this is less likely but some african american may change into this)


Just to clarify, i am not a racist, i am a conservative (libertarian), i supported Ron paul.
If i bring out some strong emotions, i am sorry. Yet, i believe that race relations especially after this election is pertinent

SummyF is still right about Obama, he is just another white guy. He has pretty much continued all of the trends of the last administration.
.

...closes guantanamo, passes huge stimulus bill, proposes housing market package to assist millions in trouble with mortage crisis, wants to reverse current stem cell policy, seeks dramatic health care reform, and so on. Yes...he's the same as George Bush.:sarcastic:

Also, "enemy combatant" is no longer sufficient means to hold "war on terror" suspects. I would hardly consider that minor considering it means that terror suspects are being granted basic human rights that the Bush administration revoked.

He passed the first bailout after Ben Bernanke came up to him and said that if he let AIG and the major investment banks fail, then no one would talk about the Great Depression anymore...

My point was that he continues the same trends that perpetuate the socio-economic stratification that handicaps the lower rungs and hinders social mobility.

The economic problems of the black community are more traceable to this than to any concrete factors along racial lines.

Ah, I see... so his tax plan which increases taxation on upper income earners and decreases tax deductions, yet lowers taxes on lower income people hinders social mobility according to the same trends as Bush? His planned repeal of the Bush tax cuts perpetuate the same trends as Bush? SCHIP, which provides health insurance to poor children perpetuates the same stratification? Increased regulation of banks and financial institutions, which will greatly decrease their autonomy and high risk wealth-generating power, will continue the same trends? His proposals to end all no-bid private contracts both for the federal budget and for the military continue the same trends?

They've been ghettoized and marginalized along racial lines, so I'm not sure you can separate the two. This has been happening since the massive northward migration of southern blacks during WWI because of all the northern industrial jobs.

This is all superficial pandering until the basic economic structure and methods of state intervention are changed.

Increased tax burdens on upper class income earners translates to higher prices paid on goods for lower class income earners, so that tax benefit the lower class gets may be just enough to make up for the added return on investment needed to cover the tax hike.

SCHIP has been the principle goal of healthcare lobbyists for years. This plan lines the pockets of HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, and other health industries.

I personally feel that ending economic stratification begins with giving individuals the ability to gain independence from certain wealthier groups, not by using the government to enforce the preexisting dependency.

And financial institutions do not engage in high-risk investments without reason. I love this now pervasive view that these individuals with degrees and years of experience are financial dunces.

The fact of the matter is that these were not remotely "high-risk" investments, because they were tacitly backed and facilitated by the government.

The government did everything in its power to facilitate poor investment and credit practices.

Obama's solution to the crisis this caused: Do the same thing, only more of it!

Whats more, do you think that banks care whatsoever for regulation and oversight? Who do you think controls the oversight?

Every single one of Obama's advisors and cabinet members on the economic side are very rich individuals. Where do you think their money comes from?

Well, some more attention to history would show that the tax scheme under Clinton (which Obama is more or less going to revert to) was associated with less income disparity, a lower household debt to GDP ratio, and less over-leveraging. Additional attention to history would show that the major economic crises have all unroofed a previously underappreciated regulatory deficiency, which was true for the S&L crisis in 1988, true in 1929, and true now. Fundamental systemic change isn't needed -- what IS needed is a subtle check on the relentless flow of wealth from the poor to the rich.

Call it superficial pandering, but it's the results that matter.

That's not at all true -- an increased tax burden on the wealthy is not going to alter demand for basic foodstuffs and clothing, and if anything it will decrease prices by lowering the disposable income (and therefore spending power) of the wealthy.

That's utterly incorrect. How is it going to line the pocket of an HMO when the whole purpose of it is for the government to foot the bill in lieu of an HMO? How will it line the pockets of health industries when the government grossly underpays for medical services (such that many medical practices cannot afford to take patients with public health insurance because they'll be operating at a loss).

Got any examples of where this has worked in modern American history?

They were self-selected based on their ability to hide risk from investors but generate fabulous wealth. The subprime crisis is a fantastic example. Mortgages pay 8-9% interest, so let's lower the credit standards -- even if 5% of them default, it's still a huge return. Banks refused to revalue their assets despite the plummeting value of real estate, because that would have meant writing down their capital to maintain their balance sheet. The entire system operated under an assumption that real estate prices would never fall and that the stock market indices would keep going up.

So credit-default-swaps weren't high risk??? 30:1 leveraging wasn't high risk??? What are you talking about???

Is today opposite day? Or have you just never actually compared his and Bush's policies side to side?

It doesn't matter -- your argument comes not from actual attention to policies, but to an unyielding thesis of yours that the government is out to get all of us and that everything is the same. To hell with any evidence to the contrary, you're always coming to the exact same conclusions.

Left to their own devices, banks and investors will screw themselves before realizing what they've done. That's the basic error that Alan Greenspan, Ronald Reagan, Henry Paulson, and George W. Bush have made -- the assumption that people won't make self-destructive decisions. Well, how has that assumption worked out?

If there were regulations preventing sub-prime mortgages, or regulations requiring 100% disclosure of credit-default swaps, or regulations about writedowns of bank asset value, or regulations about leverage limits, or regulations about risk disclosure, or regulations about capital requirements, then this crisis may never have happened.

Who cares?