I'm doing great - and suspect you may not fully appreciate the context of my question.

For some time now many have accepted the axiom that Democrat policies (that is liberal policies) are automatically beneficial to minorities - and that Republican (that is more conservative - or less liberal) are detrimental.

What I suggest goes beyond the author's article. It is good that she opens the question of evaluating policy and its impact - and should that happen on a wider scale I believe minorities, particularly b****s, will become less monolithic in their v****g practices.

To assume that a person's skin color, or g****r, makes them both a victim and government dependent is, I believe, insulting to them.

If one want to focus on economic status - that is those who are poor regardless of g****r or color - one can easily conclude that liberal Democrat policies are harmful.

Democrats are big time protectors of teachers' unions - a force that very often is more interested in wages and benefits for the work performed with limited interest on educational achievements. The urban poor, who are by large b****s, are the victims of this - and the Republican support of vouchers provides a real opportunity of introducing the idea of education achievement being the primary driver of teacher's pay and benefits.

Democrats are big time proponents of allowing i*****l i*******ts pretty much a free hand in taking jobs that others with limited education and sk**ls might otherwise aspire to. This not only takes opportunities away from the poor, but suppresses the wages of the most vulnerable in society, which does include a lot of single mothers and minorities.

I could go on - but the essence of what I suggest is that identity politics is d******e by definition - and solutions to improving the economic conditions of the most vulnerable are not necessarily those that liberal policies put forth.

Thanks for you input and hope this expansion of what I am trying to say provides a bit more insight to the essence of the question posed.

To answer your question: I doubt it.

The reason I doubt it: the author of the article takes pains to point out why the Clintons may not deserve the unreserved support of b****s because in reality President Clinton's policies were not what b****s remember. He is right in pointing out:

"On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton made the economy his top priority and argued persuasively that conservatives were using race to divide the nation and divert attention from the failed economy. In practice, however, he capitulated entirely to the right-wing backlash against the civil-rights movement and embraced former president Ronald Reagan’s agenda on race, crime, welfare, and taxes—ultimately doing more harm to black communities than Reagan ever did."

And if Republicans had not moved even further right, that charge might make a difference. However, it seems that the Republicans are actually conceding the black v**e to Democrats by not addressing their concerns and doubling down on the policies that the author criticizes about Pres. Clinton. The 'incarceration state' being a prime example.

Do you see anyone on the right (Republicans) articulating a set of policies that would draw b****s to v**e for them? I don't....and wonder why. I think b****s as a v****g bloc are ripe for the picking, but no one is our harvesting those v**es.

Hope you are doing well on this cold day.

Here's another to consider~~~


Trump would make it advantageous for companies to remain here. As it is, there won't be jobs at all for anyone left if this kind of stuff keeps happening.....In any number of threads I've said, Trump is one of the big boys..Runs with these people that decide to come or go...If elected he may very well be the only one to bring Corporate America back..Jobs needed, not lost, if this economy is ever going to truly return..Right now it is not looking good..Especially with any number of financial analyst saying we are running right into another depression...

At this rate Chicago will be another Detroit before too long..~
Schwinn, C*****r Jack, Fannie May Candy... gone. Caterpillar could be the death knell.
It use to be business and manufacturing was the majority revenue source for Illinois. In 2014,
Illinois Policy (an independent watchdog group) published... Illinois homeowners are 68% of the
revenue for the state... .....

Until the Democrap machine here is stopped, Gov. Rauner, Trump nor anyone else, will be able
to fix the problem here.


Link: Maker of Oreos, Ritz C*****rs Shedding 1,000s of Chicago Jobs, Outsourcing to Mexico
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/25/maker-of-oreos-ritz-c*****rs-shedding-1000s-of-chicago-jobs-outsourcing-to-mexico/

Mondelez bakeries, which makes Oreo cookies, Ritz c*****rs, and Cadbury chocolates, has announced yet another round of layoffs at its Chicago bakery.

The company is enlarging its Mexico facilities as it closes nine bakery lines in the Windy City, some of which have been operating for 60 years.

The company has been cutting costs since its 2012 separation from Kraft Foods’ grocery business. The goal is to reduce costs by at least $1.5 billion by the end of 2018.

In 2013, Mondelez said its cost-cutting strategies included outsourcing white-collar jobs to countries where labor was less costly, shutting down old plants and bakery lines, improving plants in less costly areas, and corporate reorganization.

By 2015 the company had already reduced its work force from an estimated 107,000 employees to 104,000.

Mondelez says changing customer interests in pre-packaged foods, rising U.S. costs, and cheaper foreign labor costs are at the root of the changes.

By October of last year, the company had announced it was outsourcing hundreds of white-collar jobs to overseas and was laying-off many of its Deerfield, Illinois-based office workers.
<snip> More to the article...

Sometimes we just don't need an entire thread to discuss certain random political thoughts on different topics...

Thought I'd make this one up and if you want post something that doesn't really pertain to an existing thread you may post it here...

Example~~Obama destroying federal terrorist records....
DHS staff were ordered to destroy records on a federal database that showed links between possible jihadists and Islamic terrorist groups
Sad state of affairs brought on by Dem's/ Progs going back to Billy Clinton........
Failure to pay attention and ignore the signals.......

And Bill was given a pass although it was brought to the nations attention.

Obozo is sympathetic to radical Islamist, not because of the connection w/ Islam, but because they hold Western Nations as
common enemies with his world view.......

We can not remove him and his ilk any sooner......

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/dhs-isis-destroy-records/2016/02/06/id/713047/#ixzz3zUtHc4Nt
A veteran official with the Department of Homeland Security claims he and other staff were ordered to destroy records on a federal database that showed links between possible jihadists and Islamic terrorist groups.

"After leaving my 15-year career at DHS, I can no longer be silent about the dangerous state of America’s counter-terror strategy, our leaders’ willingness to compromise the security of citizens for the ideological rigidity of political correctness—and, consequently, our vulnerability to devastating, mass-casualty attack," the former employee, Patrick Haney, wrote in an explosive column that was published late Friday on The Hill website.

Haney alleges that the Obama administration has been "engaged in a bureaucratic effort" to destroy the raw material and intelligence the Department of Homeland Security has been collecting for years, leaving the United States open to mass-casualty attacks...<snip> Plenty more to the article, read on.......

This problem, as with most of our problems, cannot be understood or successfully dealt with, by looking at parts of the problem individually. We refuse to acknowledge, or understand, that all things are connected, meaning, that we cannot deal properly with anything without looking at the bigger picture.

20 years ago, a bachelors degree guaranteed a job above entry level, now it is a requirement FOR entry level jobs ( in many cases ), What changed? Have the jobs become more complicated? No, the change was that the first 2 years of a 4 year degree - are spent in remedial classes - teaching things that once were a requirement for a high school diploma. Now, one must have a master degree, to guarantee a job above entry level.

A bachelors degree is 1000 times more expensive than it was 20 years ago, ensuring that fewer get them and those that do and land a job, do so for lower wages and take many years longer to pay off the student debt, so have less money to spend on other things. The cost of a college education has risen 500% more than wages have in the past 20 years. Where a high school diploma once guaranteed a job above minimum wage, a bachelors degree is now required - and in some cases - that only guarantees a minimum wage job.

That means, that the supply of "qualified" workers is shrinking, due to the cost of becoming "qualified" has skyrocketed faster then healthcare costs. We have "smarted" ourselves into an unemployment crisis. The actual unemployment rate is many, MANY times higher than reported, as the Gov. keeps shrinking the requirements for being classed as unemployed - to keep the numbers low.

This is just ONE of the dozens of factors related to the jobs outlook in the US. I used the education system as a way to illustrate that this is way more complex than just "jobs".