COMMENTS: 39
The Economic Fallout Has Decimated the Black Middle Class
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Economy headlines via email.
To judge from most of the commentary on the Gates-Crowley affair, you would think that a "black elite" has gotten dangerously out of hand. First Gates (Cambridge, Yale, Harvard) showed insufficient deference to Crowley, then Obama (Occidental, Harvard) piled on to accuse the police of having acted "stupidly." Was this "the end of white America" which the Atlantic had warned of in its January/February cover story? Or had the injuries of class -- working class in Crowley's case -- finally trumped the grievances of race?
Left out of the ensuing tangle of commentary on race and class has been the increasing impoverishment -- or, we should say, re-impoverishment -- of African Americans as a group. In fact, the most salient and lasting effect of the current recession may turn out to be the decimation of the black middle class. According to a study by Demos and the Institute for Assets and Social Policy, 33 percent of the black middle class was already in danger of falling out of the middle class at the start of the recession. Gates and Obama, along with Oprah and Cosby, will no doubt remain in place, but millions of the black equivalents of Officer Crowley -- from factory workers to bank tellers and white collar managers -- are sliding down toward destitution.
For African Americans -- and to a large extent, Latinos -- the recession is over. It occurred between 2000 and 2007, as black employment decreased by 2.4 percent and incomes declined by 2.9 percent. During the seven-year long black recession, one third of black children lived in poverty and black unemployment -- even among college graduates -- consistently ran at about twice the level of white unemployment. That was the black recession. What's happening now is a depression.
Black unemployment is now at 14.7 percent, compared to 8.7 for whites. In New York City, black unemployment has been rising four times as fast as that of whites. Lawrence Mishel, president of the Economic Policy Institute, estimates that 40 percent of African Americans will have experienced unemployment or underemployment by 2010, and this will increase child poverty from one-third of African-American children to slightly over half. No one can entirely explain the extraordinary rate of job loss among African Americans, though factors may include the relative concentration of blacks in the hard-hit retail and manufacturing sectors, as well as the lesser seniority of blacks in better-paying, white collar, positions.
But one thing is certain: The longstanding racial "wealth gap" makes African Americans particularly vulnerable to poverty when job loss strikes. In 1998, the net worth of white households on average was $100,700 higher than that of African-Americans. By 2007, this gap had increased to $142,600. The Survey of Consumer Finances, which is supported by the Federal Reserve Board, collects this data every three years -- and every time it has been collected, the racial wealth gap has widened. To put it another way: in 2004, for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family, the African American family had only one 12 cents. In 2007, it had exactly a dime. So when an African American breadwinner loses a job, there are usually no savings to fall back on, no well-heeled parents to hit up, no retirement accounts to raid.
Stay up to date with the latest Economy headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bonapartist on Aug 10, 2009 1:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is easier to shave them off the edges than White middle class, at least for now. Naturally the Whites will be the next but by that time the poor will be fractured along political, religious and racial lines. Divide and conquer.
It is not abotu race but sadly it is about class. Race is a good tool by the rulling oligarchy to fracrute the rest, middle class is vanishing and all that is left are top 10%, another tier of maybe around 20% of those who directlly work for the system and the rest are inching towards Marxist proletariat.
Prior to the Civil War the white slaveowners monopolized southern economy and politics but they went through considerable pains to convince the poor whites that skin color is what matters.
So long as the people play the game according to the rules made by the oligarchy the said oligarchy will remain in power. It is about the economic class and not about the race.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: esidual racism?
Posted by: talkville
» RE: Residual racism?
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: esidual racism?
Posted by: desidid
» White Man's Burden
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Aug 10, 2009 1:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To a great extent, however, this has also become an issue to be taken up internally by the black-, latino- and other ethnic-based middle-classes themselves.
It is simply not possible at this level of our development since the civil-rights days of the past to assign responsibility to only one sector of the middle- and upper- classes.
It is about Class.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It is about Class
Posted by: desidid
» RE: It is about Class
Posted by: talkville
» But, on the "positive" side
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davy on Aug 10, 2009 3:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 10, 2009 3:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Divide us by race again, eh?
Posted by: fred_53_99
» RE: Divide us by race again, eh?
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Divide us by race again, eh?
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Divide us by race again, eh?
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dave1616 on Aug 10, 2009 4:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Discussion Forum
Recommended Reading Lists
* Additionally , Please Google , " Born With a Skin Disease?!: A Mother's Whitewash ." , and have a "Go" at the eleven questions posed at the end of the narrative .
Peace .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 10, 2009 4:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But even in my own shitty circumstance, this is my deepest regret is that the intersection of race and class is where the real clusterfuck continues to wreak havoc on my melanin-rich neighbors. That's the bigger, real suck in all of this.
Behind every rich guy there's a crime.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The real total suck in all of this
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CLARENCE SWINNEY on Aug 10, 2009 6:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ANTI AMERICA
ANTI WORLD
In 1994 Newt Gingrich won 73 new Barbarians into the House of Representatives
Their goal=Destroy the Social Safety Nets.
They spent $110,000,000 (GAO number) on Hearings/Investigations in an effort to destroy the Clinton Administration.
Lies-Smears were multitude with help of right wing freaknut radio and Conservative TV stations,
They held 13 public hearings on Whitewater a well-known simple land deal.
Borrow money-buy land-cut roads-sell lots. McDougal had been doing it for decades.
It was used as a Platform from which to launch many investigations
NY Times and Washington Post were culprits and assisted in the attacks.
TRIPLE A PARTY
Anti-anti-anti- no-no-no
Good for the Middle Class=No No No
Good for the Lower Class=No No No
Good for the Rich=Yes Yes Yes
Their Record is public information on their policies and votes in Congress.
Six years of Total Control of Executive-Senate House
A record of Coolidge in 1920s’
Cut Taxes for Rich
Let Rich Wall Street Gamblers play with marked cards and loaded Dice.
Make bets on many different things
Take $4000 bet with only $100 in pocket for payoff
OH! SNAKE EYES. UNCLE SAM HELP HELP HELP
BUSHALOONS
Many leading members of Bush administration were Clinton Haters Deluxe.
They joined Nixon in 1969 and were in office until 1977. Then, they joined Reagan in 1981 and were in office for 12 years. The believed they would be in office for the remainder of their active lives.
Clinton victory killed them. They hated Democrats and the Press for Nixon Resignation even though Republicans played a major part.
Cheney never got over Nixon resignation. His hatred increased with age.
He wanted to destroy Clinton. His mind became warped.
He had been one of the power people for 20 of prior 24 years.
When they returned to power controlling all three branches it was get even time.
They ignored Clinton administration many warnings on Osama Bin Laden and concentrated on eliminating the many Executive Orders initiated by Clinton.
It did not matter that some were valuable for the people.
If the Clinton name was on it --kill the sucker –nice Christ-like people?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CLARENCE SWINNEY on Aug 10, 2009 6:14 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ANTI AMERICA
ANTI WORLD
George Bush was part of the Hatred group. He had campaigned for his Dad and was devastated when he lost. He hated Clinton and his people.
1946 to 2007
REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH + INCOME
From 1946 to 1981 each percentile gained almost evenly, percentage, in Income and Wealth.
Economists called it a Picket Fence Distribution.
Reagan policies began the Step Ladder distribution.
Each percentile gained some but top step (10%) went into outer space
Middle Class was “rewarded” by Reagan with largest income tax increase in history the Payroll Tax increase plus a tax on 50% of Social Security Income plus a 5-cent gas tax.
In 2007 it had been upward distributed so much the top 1% owned 21% and top 10% owned 71% of the nations individual wealth.
The Middle Class, not top 10%, should own 71% of wealth in a Democracy
Big question. How many decades will it take to redistribute downward to middle class?
So majority have affordable housing-affordable education-affordable health care
Financial Security more important to the Middle Class than “Excessive” Military Security
Reagan + GW Bush “forced” the Rich to take 2500 Billion in Tax cuts.
The Rich Income Tax Rate was reduced by 55% under Reagan.
His Savings and Loan change destroyed the institution but gave much wealth to Michael Milken ($555 Million income in one year) and his rich buddies in the rich man’s Wall Street Gambling Casino.
The reduction of Unearned Income Tax Rate from 28% to 15% was boom boom for very rich in the Gambling Casino. The huge reduction in Estate Taxes.
Bush 1700 Tax cut was primarily a reward to his Wall Street Gambling Pals.
Rich 2.7% (5 million) got four times as much as bottom 80 percent (125 million).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CLARENCE SWINNEY on Aug 10, 2009 6:18 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ANTI AMERICA
ANTI WORLD
WORLD’S GREATEST CREDITOR TO GREATEST DEBTOR
In 1980 the Federal Debt was under 1000 Billion
Reagan added 1700B
Bush I added 1300B
Bush II added 5000B +
Twenty years of so called “conservativism” added on 8 times as much as we had after 200 years.
“Conservatives” controlled the Senate for 18 years—House for 12 years—All government for 6 years.
Federal Spending-- went from 600B per year under Carter to 4000B in Bush last budgeted year
Federal Debt—1000B to 11,000B +
They gave us the Savings and Loan Debacle, which aided in Hostile Takeovers of major corporations by Rich Gamblers in Wall Street Casino. Rich got ultra-rich.
They gave us the Housing fiasco and millions of home foreclosures.
Yes! It was Rich Gamblers in the Wall Street Gambling Casino.
Plus assistance by Federal Reserve Chairman Republican Alan Greenspan.
The same man who gave President Clinton seven significant rate increases in campaign year for reelection and six significant rate increases from June 1999 to June 2000 to elect a Republican President. Impartial? Ho Hum.
A Republican President gets a 6.5% Democratic Interest Rate cut to a 1% Interest Rate which exploded Housing Industry into a free for all profit maker for Developers-Realtors-Banks in Wall Street Casino.
Wall Street Gamblers were freed to use instruments similar to marked cards and loaded dice as in Coolidge years. Regulators were hog tied.
SCANDALS
Carter had “no” person convicted for a crime committed while working for him
Clinton had “one” person convicted of a felony that was committed while working for him
Nixon—aw heck forget it.
Reagan—
Haynes Johnson of Washington Post labeled the Reagan Administration as the most scurrilous in history
138 persons working for him charged with crimes.
That number is more than the grand total for all presidents since 1900
9 cabinet members investigated
Scandals in 32 departments of the federal government
15 major officials found guilty
Most of the crimes involved money
cswinney2@triad.rr.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CLARENCE SWINNEY on Aug 10, 2009 6:29 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PRO AMERICA
PRO WORLD
WE NEED MORE OF THIS LEADERSHIP--AN EXPERT IN GOVERNANCE--A TRUE AMERICAN
CLINTON PRAISE-WITH PLEASURE
GDP--rose from 6300 to 11,600
NATIONAL INCOME-5,000 to 8,000 Billion--took 20 years to grow 2500B before Clinton
JOBS CREATED--over 22 million--record by far
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS--$360 to $478
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS WORKED--never hit 35.0--hit that mark 4 times in 80's
UNEMPLOYMENT--from 7.2% down down down to 3.9%
WELFARE TO WORK—11,533,710 on federal roll in 1996 and 3,880,321 in 2007.
MINIMUM WAGE--$4.25 to $5.15
MINORITIES--did exceedingly well
HOME OWNERSHIP--hit all time high
DEFICIT--290 Billion to whoopee a SURPLUS
DEBT----+28%---300% increase over prior12 years
FEDERAL SPENDING--+28%---80% under Reagan- who da true conservative?
DOW JONES AVERAGE--3,500 to 11,800 all it's history to get to 3500 and Clinton zooms it
NASDAQ--700 to 5,000---all of it's history to get to 700 and Clinton zooms it
VALUES INDEXES-- almost all bad went down--good went up in zoom zoom zoom
FOREIGN AFFAIRS--Peace on Earth good will toward each other---Mark of a true Christian--what has Bush done to Peace on Earth?
POPULARITY---highest poll ratings in history during peacetime in AFRICA, ASIA AND EUROPE even 98.5% in Moscow--left office with highest gallup rating since it was started in 1920's.
STAND UP FOR JUSTICE--evil conservatives spent $110,000,000 on hearings and investigations and caught--- ONE--- very evil man who took a few plane rides to events.
BOW YOUR HEADS--Thank you God for sending us a man of Bill Clinton's character, intelligence, knowledge of governance, ability to face up to crises without whimpering and a great leader of the world.
THANK YOU GOD FOR THE GOOD TIMES THE CLINTON YEARS.
cswinney2@triad.rr.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Aug 10, 2009 6:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Conservatives Contribute To Poverty.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 10, 2009 7:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the "apparent gains" of the civil rights movement, womens movement, and now gay rights, these people of privilege are throwing everything all in. As jobs have hemorrhaged to overseas markets, as union workers or higher wage workers have been replaced by non-union immigrants that can be paid less (or not at all), as there are less and less "minorities" in the workplace, and as more and more white people become unemployed I wonder whom they will blame, when they have lost their jobs.
For the last 30+ years, "our government" has been hijacked by the corporate oligarchy to enrich their pockets at the expense of the masses! The "average American" has been so busy consuming and working, pretending to themselves that they have "made it" they are unwilling or unable to see that the real "Welfare Queens" are the Corporate Oligarchy"! Even now as our nation faces so many major issues from credit, health-care, housing, to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan society is being ever more polarized, and the very people screaming the loudest against don't even see how badly they are being used, and how they really aren't fighting for their own interests!
Yes, African-Americans are the proverbial canary in the coalmines, but until white America realize that they too are in those same coalmines there will be a problem. This is less about ethnicity than it is about class! It is said that Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake", well the Corporate Oligarchy and their prostitutes in Congress have been telling Americans that for a long time, I just want to know when will all Americans of good conscious, stop falling for the bs and come together to take back our country!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» African-American????
Posted by: billwald
» RE: African-American????
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FoonTheElder on Aug 10, 2009 9:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1988 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced fines totaling more than $3.1 million against IBP for exposing workers at its plant in Dakota City, Nebraska to cumulative trauma disorders resulting from highly repetitive meat cutting tasks. The OSHA report held that IBP knew about the problems but "did not attempt to devise or implement solutions."
By the late 1990s, the meat packing industry had consolidated such that the top four firms accounted for approximately 50 percent of all U.S. poultry and pork production and 80 percent of all beef production."
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html
Most of these jobs eventually went from urban, mostly unionized blacks to immigrant non-union Latinos at a significantly lower wage.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: xample of the Meat Packing Industries
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Informed on Aug 10, 2009 12:35 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, really? Suddenly, the astute researcher Ehrenreich can’t fathom how massive immigration of low-skilled foreign workers during this period, many of them illegal, could, shall we say, undercut/underbid/eliminate native-born black workers.
Somehow liberals shy away from this logical conclusion and, in doing so, are as complicit in the desertion of their fellow citizens to continued economic ruin as any mean white Republican could be. More so, since liberal Alternet and its acolytes continue to constantly bang the drum for “immigration reform,” which would set the stage for more competition for minority workers for generations to come.
See http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/sactestimony040508.html -Immigration and Black Americans: Assessing the Impact, which references university and think tank sources to back up the indisputable and obvious fact that more foreign workers hurt the vulnerable, low- skilled native workers FIRST and MOST.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: the missing link
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reevolve on Aug 10, 2009 1:20 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apples and oranges anyone? So, black two-parent families are doing relatively well? And this refutes the idea that black single-parent households (70%) contribute negatively to the economic picture of black families overall? Am I missing something?
"The share of black children living in a single parent home increased by 155 percent between 1960 to 2006, while the share of white children living in single parent homes increased by a staggering 229 percent."
Again, this is a meaningless statistic. If the percentage of white single-parent households went from 1% to 4% (a "staggering" 400% increase) and the percentage of black single-parent households went from 40% to 80% (a "mere" 200% increase), isn't this still a black problem. (I know these are not the real numbers. Just making a point.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This makes no sense
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sslyon on Aug 10, 2009 2:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Decimate, per se is the loss of one in ten and the term dates back to Roman times, usually applied to killing off 10% of a population or an army as a teaching tool.
Devastate is utter destruction, or at least a lot more severe. The 40% mentioned in the article clearly falls in the latter category.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: daw13 on Aug 10, 2009 2:42 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Covenant
Posted by: desidid
» RE: The Covenant
Posted by: daw13
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cathyc on Aug 10, 2009 6:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What an infantilised aka christianised people the Americans are!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TrembleTheDevil on Aug 13, 2009 8:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from, When Justice Lies
The precise era that saw a drug-law fueled explosion in our prison population, the early 1970s, are the exact same years that the economic situation of blacks began to starkly worsen and that the gap between rich and poor is wrenched wide open. Beginning in those years and continuing into today, "the economic status of black compared to that of whites has, on average, stagnated or deteriorated."
Up until 1973, the precise year the Rockefeller drug laws were passed, the difference between black and white median income had been closing. But then that year it changed course, and in "an ominous bellwether... the gap between black and white incomes started to grow wider again, in both absolute and relative terms."
In the nearly forty years since America's modern drug laws were passed, there has been a massive increase in economic inequality by any measure. In the early 1970's not only did the income gap between black and white begin to widen again, it also becomes much more top-heavily favored to the very rich - who happen to be almost exclusively white as well
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bonapartist on Aug 10, 2009 1:10 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is easier to shave them off the edges than White middle class, at least for now. Naturally the Whites will be the next but by that time the poor will be fractured along political, religious and racial lines. Divide and conquer.
It is not abotu race but sadly it is about class. Race is a good tool by the rulling oligarchy to fracrute the rest, middle class is vanishing and all that is left are top 10%, another tier of maybe around 20% of those who directlly work for the system and the rest are inching towards Marxist proletariat.
Prior to the Civil War the white slaveowners monopolized southern economy and politics but they went through considerable pains to convince the poor whites that skin color is what matters.
So long as the people play the game according to the rules made by the oligarchy the said oligarchy will remain in power. It is about the economic class and not about the race.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: esidual racism?
Posted by: talkville
» RE: Residual racism?
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: esidual racism?
Posted by: desidid
» White Man's Burden
Posted by: Cathyc
Comments are closed-
Posted by: talkville on Aug 10, 2009 1:24 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To a great extent, however, this has also become an issue to be taken up internally by the black-, latino- and other ethnic-based middle-classes themselves.
It is simply not possible at this level of our development since the civil-rights days of the past to assign responsibility to only one sector of the middle- and upper- classes.
It is about Class.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: It is about Class
Posted by: desidid
» RE: It is about Class
Posted by: talkville
» But, on the "positive" side
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davy on Aug 10, 2009 3:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 10, 2009 3:58 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Divide us by race again, eh?
Posted by: fred_53_99
» RE: Divide us by race again, eh?
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Divide us by race again, eh?
Posted by: johnwinthrop
» RE: Divide us by race again, eh?
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dave1616 on Aug 10, 2009 4:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Discussion Forum
Recommended Reading Lists
* Additionally , Please Google , " Born With a Skin Disease?!: A Mother's Whitewash ." , and have a "Go" at the eleven questions posed at the end of the narrative .
Peace .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 10, 2009 4:46 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But even in my own shitty circumstance, this is my deepest regret is that the intersection of race and class is where the real clusterfuck continues to wreak havoc on my melanin-rich neighbors. That's the bigger, real suck in all of this.
Behind every rich guy there's a crime.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The real total suck in all of this
Posted by: talkville
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CLARENCE SWINNEY on Aug 10, 2009 6:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ANTI AMERICA
ANTI WORLD
In 1994 Newt Gingrich won 73 new Barbarians into the House of Representatives
Their goal=Destroy the Social Safety Nets.
They spent $110,000,000 (GAO number) on Hearings/Investigations in an effort to destroy the Clinton Administration.
Lies-Smears were multitude with help of right wing freaknut radio and Conservative TV stations,
They held 13 public hearings on Whitewater a well-known simple land deal.
Borrow money-buy land-cut roads-sell lots. McDougal had been doing it for decades.
It was used as a Platform from which to launch many investigations
NY Times and Washington Post were culprits and assisted in the attacks.
TRIPLE A PARTY
Anti-anti-anti- no-no-no
Good for the Middle Class=No No No
Good for the Lower Class=No No No
Good for the Rich=Yes Yes Yes
Their Record is public information on their policies and votes in Congress.
Six years of Total Control of Executive-Senate House
A record of Coolidge in 1920s’
Cut Taxes for Rich
Let Rich Wall Street Gamblers play with marked cards and loaded Dice.
Make bets on many different things
Take $4000 bet with only $100 in pocket for payoff
OH! SNAKE EYES. UNCLE SAM HELP HELP HELP
BUSHALOONS
Many leading members of Bush administration were Clinton Haters Deluxe.
They joined Nixon in 1969 and were in office until 1977. Then, they joined Reagan in 1981 and were in office for 12 years. The believed they would be in office for the remainder of their active lives.
Clinton victory killed them. They hated Democrats and the Press for Nixon Resignation even though Republicans played a major part.
Cheney never got over Nixon resignation. His hatred increased with age.
He wanted to destroy Clinton. His mind became warped.
He had been one of the power people for 20 of prior 24 years.
When they returned to power controlling all three branches it was get even time.
They ignored Clinton administration many warnings on Osama Bin Laden and concentrated on eliminating the many Executive Orders initiated by Clinton.
It did not matter that some were valuable for the people.
If the Clinton name was on it --kill the sucker –nice Christ-like people?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CLARENCE SWINNEY on Aug 10, 2009 6:14 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ANTI AMERICA
ANTI WORLD
George Bush was part of the Hatred group. He had campaigned for his Dad and was devastated when he lost. He hated Clinton and his people.
1946 to 2007
REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH + INCOME
From 1946 to 1981 each percentile gained almost evenly, percentage, in Income and Wealth.
Economists called it a Picket Fence Distribution.
Reagan policies began the Step Ladder distribution.
Each percentile gained some but top step (10%) went into outer space
Middle Class was “rewarded” by Reagan with largest income tax increase in history the Payroll Tax increase plus a tax on 50% of Social Security Income plus a 5-cent gas tax.
In 2007 it had been upward distributed so much the top 1% owned 21% and top 10% owned 71% of the nations individual wealth.
The Middle Class, not top 10%, should own 71% of wealth in a Democracy
Big question. How many decades will it take to redistribute downward to middle class?
So majority have affordable housing-affordable education-affordable health care
Financial Security more important to the Middle Class than “Excessive” Military Security
Reagan + GW Bush “forced” the Rich to take 2500 Billion in Tax cuts.
The Rich Income Tax Rate was reduced by 55% under Reagan.
His Savings and Loan change destroyed the institution but gave much wealth to Michael Milken ($555 Million income in one year) and his rich buddies in the rich man’s Wall Street Gambling Casino.
The reduction of Unearned Income Tax Rate from 28% to 15% was boom boom for very rich in the Gambling Casino. The huge reduction in Estate Taxes.
Bush 1700 Tax cut was primarily a reward to his Wall Street Gambling Pals.
Rich 2.7% (5 million) got four times as much as bottom 80 percent (125 million).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CLARENCE SWINNEY on Aug 10, 2009 6:18 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ANTI AMERICA
ANTI WORLD
WORLD’S GREATEST CREDITOR TO GREATEST DEBTOR
In 1980 the Federal Debt was under 1000 Billion
Reagan added 1700B
Bush I added 1300B
Bush II added 5000B +
Twenty years of so called “conservativism” added on 8 times as much as we had after 200 years.
“Conservatives” controlled the Senate for 18 years—House for 12 years—All government for 6 years.
Federal Spending-- went from 600B per year under Carter to 4000B in Bush last budgeted year
Federal Debt—1000B to 11,000B +
They gave us the Savings and Loan Debacle, which aided in Hostile Takeovers of major corporations by Rich Gamblers in Wall Street Casino. Rich got ultra-rich.
They gave us the Housing fiasco and millions of home foreclosures.
Yes! It was Rich Gamblers in the Wall Street Gambling Casino.
Plus assistance by Federal Reserve Chairman Republican Alan Greenspan.
The same man who gave President Clinton seven significant rate increases in campaign year for reelection and six significant rate increases from June 1999 to June 2000 to elect a Republican President. Impartial? Ho Hum.
A Republican President gets a 6.5% Democratic Interest Rate cut to a 1% Interest Rate which exploded Housing Industry into a free for all profit maker for Developers-Realtors-Banks in Wall Street Casino.
Wall Street Gamblers were freed to use instruments similar to marked cards and loaded dice as in Coolidge years. Regulators were hog tied.
SCANDALS
Carter had “no” person convicted for a crime committed while working for him
Clinton had “one” person convicted of a felony that was committed while working for him
Nixon—aw heck forget it.
Reagan—
Haynes Johnson of Washington Post labeled the Reagan Administration as the most scurrilous in history
138 persons working for him charged with crimes.
That number is more than the grand total for all presidents since 1900
9 cabinet members investigated
Scandals in 32 departments of the federal government
15 major officials found guilty
Most of the crimes involved money
cswinney2@triad.rr.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CLARENCE SWINNEY on Aug 10, 2009 6:29 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PRO AMERICA
PRO WORLD
WE NEED MORE OF THIS LEADERSHIP--AN EXPERT IN GOVERNANCE--A TRUE AMERICAN
CLINTON PRAISE-WITH PLEASURE
GDP--rose from 6300 to 11,600
NATIONAL INCOME-5,000 to 8,000 Billion--took 20 years to grow 2500B before Clinton
JOBS CREATED--over 22 million--record by far
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS--$360 to $478
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS WORKED--never hit 35.0--hit that mark 4 times in 80's
UNEMPLOYMENT--from 7.2% down down down to 3.9%
WELFARE TO WORK—11,533,710 on federal roll in 1996 and 3,880,321 in 2007.
MINIMUM WAGE--$4.25 to $5.15
MINORITIES--did exceedingly well
HOME OWNERSHIP--hit all time high
DEFICIT--290 Billion to whoopee a SURPLUS
DEBT----+28%---300% increase over prior12 years
FEDERAL SPENDING--+28%---80% under Reagan- who da true conservative?
DOW JONES AVERAGE--3,500 to 11,800 all it's history to get to 3500 and Clinton zooms it
NASDAQ--700 to 5,000---all of it's history to get to 700 and Clinton zooms it
VALUES INDEXES-- almost all bad went down--good went up in zoom zoom zoom
FOREIGN AFFAIRS--Peace on Earth good will toward each other---Mark of a true Christian--what has Bush done to Peace on Earth?
POPULARITY---highest poll ratings in history during peacetime in AFRICA, ASIA AND EUROPE even 98.5% in Moscow--left office with highest gallup rating since it was started in 1920's.
STAND UP FOR JUSTICE--evil conservatives spent $110,000,000 on hearings and investigations and caught--- ONE--- very evil man who took a few plane rides to events.
BOW YOUR HEADS--Thank you God for sending us a man of Bill Clinton's character, intelligence, knowledge of governance, ability to face up to crises without whimpering and a great leader of the world.
THANK YOU GOD FOR THE GOOD TIMES THE CLINTON YEARS.
cswinney2@triad.rr.com
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: melpol on Aug 10, 2009 6:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Conservatives Contribute To Poverty.
Posted by: johnwinthrop
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Aug 10, 2009 7:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the "apparent gains" of the civil rights movement, womens movement, and now gay rights, these people of privilege are throwing everything all in. As jobs have hemorrhaged to overseas markets, as union workers or higher wage workers have been replaced by non-union immigrants that can be paid less (or not at all), as there are less and less "minorities" in the workplace, and as more and more white people become unemployed I wonder whom they will blame, when they have lost their jobs.
For the last 30+ years, "our government" has been hijacked by the corporate oligarchy to enrich their pockets at the expense of the masses! The "average American" has been so busy consuming and working, pretending to themselves that they have "made it" they are unwilling or unable to see that the real "Welfare Queens" are the Corporate Oligarchy"! Even now as our nation faces so many major issues from credit, health-care, housing, to the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan society is being ever more polarized, and the very people screaming the loudest against don't even see how badly they are being used, and how they really aren't fighting for their own interests!
Yes, African-Americans are the proverbial canary in the coalmines, but until white America realize that they too are in those same coalmines there will be a problem. This is less about ethnicity than it is about class! It is said that Marie Antoinette said "let them eat cake", well the Corporate Oligarchy and their prostitutes in Congress have been telling Americans that for a long time, I just want to know when will all Americans of good conscious, stop falling for the bs and come together to take back our country!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» African-American????
Posted by: billwald
» RE: African-American????
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: FoonTheElder on Aug 10, 2009 9:57 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1988 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced fines totaling more than $3.1 million against IBP for exposing workers at its plant in Dakota City, Nebraska to cumulative trauma disorders resulting from highly repetitive meat cutting tasks. The OSHA report held that IBP knew about the problems but "did not attempt to devise or implement solutions."
By the late 1990s, the meat packing industry had consolidated such that the top four firms accounted for approximately 50 percent of all U.S. poultry and pork production and 80 percent of all beef production."
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html
Most of these jobs eventually went from urban, mostly unionized blacks to immigrant non-union Latinos at a significantly lower wage.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: xample of the Meat Packing Industries
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Informed on Aug 10, 2009 12:35 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, really? Suddenly, the astute researcher Ehrenreich can’t fathom how massive immigration of low-skilled foreign workers during this period, many of them illegal, could, shall we say, undercut/underbid/eliminate native-born black workers.
Somehow liberals shy away from this logical conclusion and, in doing so, are as complicit in the desertion of their fellow citizens to continued economic ruin as any mean white Republican could be. More so, since liberal Alternet and its acolytes continue to constantly bang the drum for “immigration reform,” which would set the stage for more competition for minority workers for generations to come.
See http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/sactestimony040508.html -Immigration and Black Americans: Assessing the Impact, which references university and think tank sources to back up the indisputable and obvious fact that more foreign workers hurt the vulnerable, low- skilled native workers FIRST and MOST.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: the missing link
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: reevolve on Aug 10, 2009 1:20 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Apples and oranges anyone? So, black two-parent families are doing relatively well? And this refutes the idea that black single-parent households (70%) contribute negatively to the economic picture of black families overall? Am I missing something?
"The share of black children living in a single parent home increased by 155 percent between 1960 to 2006, while the share of white children living in single parent homes increased by a staggering 229 percent."
Again, this is a meaningless statistic. If the percentage of white single-parent households went from 1% to 4% (a "staggering" 400% increase) and the percentage of black single-parent households went from 40% to 80% (a "mere" 200% increase), isn't this still a black problem. (I know these are not the real numbers. Just making a point.)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: This makes no sense
Posted by: desidid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sslyon on Aug 10, 2009 2:13 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Decimate, per se is the loss of one in ten and the term dates back to Roman times, usually applied to killing off 10% of a population or an army as a teaching tool.
Devastate is utter destruction, or at least a lot more severe. The 40% mentioned in the article clearly falls in the latter category.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: daw13 on Aug 10, 2009 2:42 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Covenant
Posted by: desidid
» RE: The Covenant
Posted by: daw13
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Cathyc on Aug 10, 2009 6:22 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What an infantilised aka christianised people the Americans are!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: TrembleTheDevil on Aug 13, 2009 8:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
from, When Justice Lies
The precise era that saw a drug-law fueled explosion in our prison population, the early 1970s, are the exact same years that the economic situation of blacks began to starkly worsen and that the gap between rich and poor is wrenched wide open. Beginning in those years and continuing into today, "the economic status of black compared to that of whites has, on average, stagnated or deteriorated."
Up until 1973, the precise year the Rockefeller drug laws were passed, the difference between black and white median income had been closing. But then that year it changed course, and in "an ominous bellwether... the gap between black and white incomes started to grow wider again, in both absolute and relative terms."
In the nearly forty years since America's modern drug laws were passed, there has been a massive increase in economic inequality by any measure. In the early 1970's not only did the income gap between black and white begin to widen again, it also becomes much more top-heavily favored to the very rich - who happen to be almost exclusively white as well
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Tax the Corporations and the Rich or Take Draconian Cuts -- the Decision Is Ours
Home Underwater? Walk Away from Geithner's Perverse 'Homeowner Relief' Plan
Fury at Wall St. Banks Fuels Public Action for Move Your Money Campaign




