President Trump

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
You don't remember this?

Most Americans say their children will be worse off

By Quentin Fottrell
Published: Aug 5, 2015 12:05 p.m. ET

Barely more than one in 10 (13%) American adults believe their children will be better off financially than they were when their career reached its peak and just over half (52%) believe their children will have less disposable income than they did in the future, according to a survey of more than 1,100 American adults released Wednesday by life insurer Haven Life and research firm YouGov. What?s more, just 20% of Americans believe their children will have a better quality of life when they reach their age.

?For the baby boomer generation, pocket money from mom and dad was only part of their early childhood,? says Yaron Ben-Zvi, co-founder and chief executive of Haven Life. ?Today?s parents are increasingly prepared to worry about and provide for their children?s financial well-being well far into their adulthoods.? (In fact, 40% of millennials say they get some kind of financial help from their parents, according to an April 2015 Bank of America/USA Today survey of 1,000 kids and 1,000 parents.)

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-say-their-children-will-be-worse-off-2015-08-05
 
We shall see when the election rolls around.  If these trends continue..and I think they will...the answer will be vetted out in the vote. I think it will go one way and you think the other.  I like my odds though. Buffett agrees when discussing how people felt during slow growth Obama years.

Warren Buffett in 'Time': U.S. kids will live better than parents, he writes in Gates edited issue

I have good news. First, most American children are going to live far better than their parents did. Second, large gains in the living standards of Americans will continue for many generations to come.

Some years back, people generally agreed with my optimism. Today, however, pollsters find that most Americans are pessimistic about their children?s future. Politicians, business leaders and the press constantly tell us that our economic machine is sputtering. Their evidence: GDP growth of only 2% or so in recent years.

http://time.com/5087360/warren-buffett-shares-the-secrets-to-wealth-in-america/
 
@fortune...excellent post. 

The best TL:DR definition of racism I have seen is:  Racism = prejudice + power/effect.

The reason why I was so adamant about the definition of racism is that people misuse the term where it has no meaning anymore.  Like fortune says...people are reflexive about that term and those any and all conversation ends, whether someone walks away or the term gets mocked or ridiculed. 

The crazy old uncle may say bigoted and hateful things but unless and until he has some degree of power/effect, it's not racism.  He is just a bigot. 

We also have differentiate between individual racism and societal/institutional racism.  Individual racism is bad (i.e a boss) but that is not what people are really offended by/objects to.  It is institutional racism that is most harmful and invidious.

Now, there are clear and obvious evidence of institutional racism.  Gerrymander, voter ID laws, officials expressing bigoted and hateful things.  Those are really easy to point out and condemn (although not to eradicate).

But the bulk of racism is built into society as a result of history, media/perception, and subconscious fears/stereotypes/beliefs. 

For example:  The creation of the inner city as a largely black ghetto did not occur by accident. 

Home builders/sellers would not sell house to minorities in the in 1920s-1940s and imposed racially restrictive convenants that prevent homeowners to sell to minorities.  That practice was found to be unconstitutional by the SC but then the FHA stepped in by intentionally redlining neighbor segregating whites from minorities, further entrenching minorities in inner cities and whites in suburbs. 

Then homebuilders started building single family homes with large lots, driving up prices and pricing out working class (who were more heavily minorities for other reasons).  White people began leaving inner city for both valid and racist reasons.  City planners started putting in highways and infrastructure to serve the wealthier suburbs while inner cities were left largely unserved.  Mass transit plans were reduced or eliminated and replaced by highways and roads, which benefited richer (and whiter) people with cars.  Companies started moving out of the cities and into the suburbs and other areas unserved by mass transit and accessible largely by cars.

On top of all that, put in individual prejudices and bigotry where minority people are viewed as lesser reliable, creditworthy, and not as desirable to rent to.  To this day, minorities are more likely to be rejected for loans and often pay a higher rate for the same loans.  Some of that is due non-racial issues such as low credit score (which of course is created to benefit those with understanding of credit and access to credit to begin with) and some of it is directly related to racial issues, such as bad lenders and brokers. 

So...that is just one (but critical) element as to why certain minorities are trapped in the inner city and have a hard time getting out.  Many people benefited having their parents buy a house and then passing along the appreciation to their children.  Buying of property also creates stability of family and neighborhood (you don't have to worry a landlord).  Of course, we all know that buying into the right neighborhood means better education and access to resources and networking opportunities not available to those excluded from those areas. 

You take those things and move it across everything in society, jobs/employment, small business building, law enforcement, education, etc, and you have a layering effect that creates a lopsided system that benefits richer and whiter individuals (gender is a whole other issue).   

There are also less traceable/quantifiable effects of racism:

For example, there is substantial research showing that there is racial bias in medical treatment provided and received, ,which results in minorities received worse medical care.  Studies show that minorities' own accounts and complaints are ignored by medical personnel and as a result provided with inferior treatment.  Layer that on top issues of access to healthcare in the inner city, lack of access to insurance, and additional health risks associated to living in poor areas like pollution and lead. 

Then there are the issues of access excellently outlined by fortune.  Just some evidence (flipping it to gender now):

while women make up 50.8% of the US population, there is only 22%  female representation in the Senate and 19.8% representation in the HOR.  There has never been a female president or vice president. 

The are 17 female CEOs as to Fortune 500 companies...24 in Fortune 1000. 

Women represent 50.3 percent of the law school graduating class...but only make up 35% of the top law firms and 20% of the equity partners. 

Women make up 80% of the healthcare workers but only 40% of the health executives.

Women earn about 53% of the degrees in accounting and make up 63% of the accountants/auditors but only make up 22% of the partners and principals.

In addition to access, there are also the issue of the guidelines and rules established to determine what is "successful".  Since old white men run the country, their idea of success is what governs.  Whether you think that is right or wrong, the bottom line is that to "succeed" you have to meet those expectations and goals in order to become successful.  Thus, even if a minority/woman made it to the top it is because that person modeled him/herself to the same guidelines and expectations set for a white male.

Now, there is obviously movement to toward equilibrium but we are far far away.  Trump's election was the result of economic changes and racial/social fears held by largely older white males and the society they created.  It is not a mystery to anyone that pays attention to politics as to who Trump's base is and what constitutes "red meat" for them.  Just talk about evil foreigners and minorities taking over and you get large responses at rally.  While individually they may not feel that they can express their prejudicial and bigoted views, Trump's success and his supporters emboldens them and now those bigoted and hateful ideas are okay.  Trump's base love him because he says all the things that they were not allow by social norms to say.  Call Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers...yeah!  Muslims are all terrorist...heck yeah!  Too many minority people coming into the country...double heck yeah.

Going back to Trump, he has had a long line of actions in which he says racially insensitive things or take actions based upon racially insensitive/ignorant/bigot ideas.  While saying racially insensitive things just makes one a bigot and idiot, taking actions based upon those beliefs turns the corner into racism.  And when you are the President of the United States, taking actions based upon racial ignorant/bigoted ideas make you the ultimate racist.  He has made many many dogwhistle comments to white nationalists...he brought in people like Steven Bannon, Steven Miller, and Jeff Sessions as top advisers. 

Pointing out a few potential "good" thing he has done for non-white people is equivalent to people saying that they can't be bigoted because they have minority friends.  It would be like saying I gave a dollar to the homeless guy and now I am a benefactor to the homeless.  No, you probably gave out of pity and have no little idea why that person is homeless, how s/he got there, and what personal/social issues caused that person to be homeless.  To point out a few individual "good" deeds is basically painting over the mold. 

With specific to the "sh*thole" comment, the key issue there is Trump's promotion of the concept that where you are from determines who you are.  As noted by others, Trump doesn't differentiate immigrants by what they do or what they can bring to this country...he solely judge them by where they are from.  This is entirely the opposite of the traditional concept of the American dream and one held most dearly by immigrants (who are usually minorities).  Of course, add on to that Trump was referring to Latin American and African nations and people and praising Norway and its immigrants, you have a complete circle of racism. 

There is so so much to read and write about on this topic. 


 
"The crazy old uncle may say bigoted and hateful things but unless and until he has some degree of power/effect, it's not racism.  He is just a bigot.  "

Thats a good way of putting it .  Bigotry is annoying but racism has real and terrible consequences. 
 
So then before he became president he was a bigot... and now he's a racist?

I think bigotry also can and does have an affect but maybe I'm not smart enough to know the difference.
 
Yes we should look it up the same time we look up the words ?hypocrisy? and ?irony?  which is what comes to mind when I hear arguments defending trump when any other president (god forbid, Obama) would have been skewered and decimated on this forum to no end

People reading his thread can draw their own conclusions .
 
fortune11 said:
Yes we should look it up the same time we look up the words ?hypocrisy? and ?irony?  which is what comes to mind when I hear arguments defending trump when any other president (god forbid, Obama) would have been skewered and decimated on this forum to no end

People reading his thread can draw their own conclusions .

Speaking of "hypocrisy" and "irony"

The 'girthers' aren't buying Trump's official weight and height

President Trump appears remarkably healthy for a 71-year-old man who doesn't eat well or exercise, and he aced a rudimentary cognitive ability test (you can take it yourself here), according to Dr. Ronny Jackson, the White House doctor appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2013. But not everyone is buying Jackson's assessment that Trump is 6-foot-3 and weighs 239 pounds, giving him a barely sub-obesity body mass index (BMI) of 29.9.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/749127/girthers-arent-buying-trumps-official-weight-height
 
fortune11 said:
Yes we should look it up the same time we look up the words ?hypocrisy? and ?irony?  which is what comes to mind when I hear arguments defending trump when any other president (god forbid, Obama) would have been skewered and decimated on this forum to no end

People reading his thread can draw their own conclusions .

True, back in Obama days everything out of his mouth was sacrosanct and if you dared question it you were instantly labelled a racist..now everything out of Trumps mouth is instantly labelled racist and any criticism is considered truth to power.  Now that's ironic.
 
All over the world all throught time, people who have power, what ever their racial/ethnic background, will almost always believe they are better than those they have power over. In the case of the modern US, whites are the ones who have power.

Don't kid yourself, left wing whites are just as condescending towards minorities as right wing whites, its just that Liberals do not openly admit their superiority complex.

 

And here comes the whataboutism.  You really think that questioning Trump's weight and height is the same as questioning where Obama was born and whether he was an American citizen?

This is why I do not bother to speak about racism much...honestly because people who don't get it, don't want to get it.  They like the way things are and refuse to believe that the system is severely skewed to benefit certain people, mostly white males.

All people got from Fortune and my post is 1) liberals are just as bad, 2) Look at those liberals, and 3) Obama is bad.  Seriously, you are welcome to live in your bubble.  Just don't tell me that you are not living in a bubble.

It is what it is.  Hopefully some people reading this will be more open thinking about what has been written and where our society is.
 
Happiness said:
All over the world all throught time, people who have power, what ever their racial/ethnic background, will almost always believe they are better than those they have power over. In the case of the modern US, whites are the ones who have power.

Don't kid yourself, left wing whites are just as condescending towards minorities as right wing whites, its just that Liberals do not openly admit their superiority complex.

Of course those with power will think of themselves as superior, racism is not isolated to the United States.  But that does not mean that we cannot recognize the situations and problems and try to rectify it.


It's not about politics or opinion.  Superiority complexes have nothing to do with it.  Facts and reality.  Recognize the issues and help correct them.
 
irvinehomeowner said:
So then before he became president he was a bigot... and now he's a racist?

I think bigotry also can and does have an affect but maybe I'm not smart enough to know the difference.

No...he was a racist before.  His influence and power just increased exponentially since becoming president. 

Bigotry about personal opinion and belief...using influence and power to promote or exacerbate those beliefs and opinions turn one into a racist. 
 
morekaos said:
That's a great argument for capitalistic free market solutions.

No it is not because free markets are inherently skewed but those pulling the levers.

Capitalists always like to pretend that race, ideology, and other social beliefs/concerns have no effect but in reality, they have serious and material effects on the market. 

Let's not forget that libertarians are against the Civil Rights Act of 1964/1968 and believe that they should be repealed.
 
Irvinecommuter said:

And here comes the whataboutism.  You really think that questioning Trump's weight and height is the same as questioning where Obama was born and whether he was an American citizen?

This is why I do not bother to speak about racism much...honestly because people who don't get it, don't want to get it.  They like the way things are and refuse to believe that the system is severely skewed to benefit certain people, mostly white males.

All people got from Fortune and my post is 1) liberals are just as bad, 2) Look at those liberals, and 3) Obama is bad.  Seriously, you are welcome to live in your bubble.  Just don't tell me that you are not living in a bubble.

It is what it is.  Hopefully some people reading this will be more open thinking about what has been written and where our society is.

Hah. Never said I was a birther.  My comment about hypocrisy and irony surrounds the fact that the left claims to be "accepting" and "tolerant", yet in practice they are just as bad as some on the right when an Obama-appointed doctor provides an assessment about the President's height and weight.
 
Kings said:
Irvinecommuter said:

And here comes the whataboutism.  You really think that questioning Trump's weight and height is the same as questioning where Obama was born and whether he was an American citizen?

This is why I do not bother to speak about racism much...honestly because people who don't get it, don't want to get it.  They like the way things are and refuse to believe that the system is severely skewed to benefit certain people, mostly white males.

All people got from Fortune and my post is 1) liberals are just as bad, 2) Look at those liberals, and 3) Obama is bad.  Seriously, you are welcome to live in your bubble.  Just don't tell me that you are not living in a bubble.

It is what it is.  Hopefully some people reading this will be more open thinking about what has been written and where our society is.

Hah. Never said I was a birther.  My comment about hypocrisy and irony surrounds the fact that the left claims to be "accepting" and "tolerant", yet in practice they are just as bad as some on the right when an Obama-appointed doctor provides an assessment about the President's height and weight.

No it is not.  Questioning Trump's claimed weight and height is not even close to question Obama's national origin to discredit his legitimacy of as a President.  Would it be the same if someone said that you were not as tall/skinny as you claim to be as oppose someone claiming that you are not an American in an attempt to negate your position or accomplishments?  Also interesting is that no other president/presidential candidate's national origin was ever questioned.  John McCain was born in Panama but no cared about that.  The equivocation argument is ridiculous.

Didn't say you were a birther but the whataboutism is certainly there.  You basically ignored my entire post by saying that "look look those people are bad too!" 

I am not sure why people keep talking about left v. right....again, not a political issue.  A social and human issue.  So is the idea that unless and until all the people on the "left" are deemed to be "good" by those on the right...we just ignores the reality of racism and its profound impact on society? 
 
Irvinecommuter said:
morekaos said:
That's a great argument for capitalistic free market solutions.

No it is not because free markets are inherently skewed but those pulling the levers.

Capitalists always like to pretend that race, ideology, and other social beliefs/concerns have no effect but in reality, they have serious and material effects on the market. 

Let's not forget that libertarians are against the Civil Rights Act of 1964/1968 and believe that they should be repealed.

So were many Democrats.

What you might not know about the 1964 Civil Rights Act

1. More Republicans voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Democrats
In the 1960s, Congress was divided on civil rights issues -- but not necessarily along party lines.
President Lyndon B. Johnson shakes hands with civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The LBJ Presidential Library is hosting a Civil Rights Summit this week to mark the 50th anniversary of the legislation.
"Most people don't realize that today at all -- in proportional terms, a far higher percentage of Republicans voted for this bill than did Democrats, because of the way the Southerners were divided," said Purdum.

Ohio's Republican Rep. William McCulloch had a conservative track record -- he opposed foreign and federal education aid and supported gun rights and school prayer. His district (the same one now represented by House Speaker John Boehner) had a small African-American population. So he had little to gain politically by supporting the Civil Rights Act.
August 28, 1963, was one of the most important days for the civil rights movement. Over 200,000 people gathered on the National Mall in Washington to hear Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his famous "I Have a Dream" speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
Yet he became a critical leader in getting the bill passed

Virginia's Democratic Rep. Howard W. Smith was a staunch segregationist and strongly opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Smith, who was chairman of the House Rules Committee, came up with many tactics to discourage the passage of the bill's Title VII, which would outlaw employment discrimination because of race, color, religion or national origin.
When Smith added the word "sex," the House reportedly laughed out loud. The ploy was Smith's attempt to quash support among the chamber's male chauvinists on the grounds that the bill would protect women's rights in the workplace, according to Clay Risen in his book "The Bill of the Century."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/10/politics/civil-rights-act-interesting-facts/index.html
 

STOP...JUST STOP.  You are going to tell me that Lincoln was a Republican too.    You are either happily ignorant or intentionally attempting to mislead people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8VOM8ET1WU

I go back to my initial comments to Liar Loan that it is not about labels but policies.  Republicans used to be about federalism and anti-slavery (remember the Civil War) while the Democrats were about state rights (it was founded by Thomas Jefferson who was a strong states right advocate).  That slowly flipped in mid-20th century when Republican became business friendly and proponents of states rights where as the Dems became more about big federal government policies (i.e FDR).  The flipped was finalized in the 1960s with the election of JFK and then Lyndon Johnson (who signed both Civil Rights Acts)

Barry Goldwater was the GOP's 1964 presidential candidate..from Wiki:

Goldwater is the politician most often credited for sparking the resurgence of the American conservative political movement in the 1960s. He was a vocal opponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, believing it was an overreach of federal government. He also had a substantial impact on the libertarian movement.

Goldwater rejected the legacy of the New Deal and fought through the conservative coalition against the New Deal coalition. He mobilized a large conservative constituency to win the hard-fought Republican primaries.

Also:

"The data suggests that even as late as 1960, only about two-thirds of African-Americans were identified with the Democratic Party," he says. "Now, two-thirds is a pretty big number. But when you compare it to today, that number hovers at about 90 percent."

Ninety percent. So what happened?

Well, according to Hutchings and to Tufts University historian Peniel Joseph, Barry Goldwater happened.

"Barry Goldwater, for Republicans, becomes a metaphor for the Republican response for this revolution that's happening in the United States," Joseph says.

The "revolution" was Freedom Summer, the period 50 years ago when hundreds of college students, most of them white, had journeyed to Mississippi to help black Mississippians become registered voters. The state's response to that integrated movement had been swift ? and violent. Less than a month before the GOP met for its national convention in San Francisco, organizers Andrew Goodman, James Chaney (who was African-American and Mississippi-born) and Michael Schwerner had been kidnapped on a dark back road in Neshoba County. The only hint that they'd existed was Schwerner's charred Ford station wagon.

The media attention that followed the men's disappearance roiled the entire South. (Their bodies would be found in early August, buried in the shallow earthen works of a dam.)

Then, two weeks after the men's disappearance and mere days before the GOP convention opened, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law, making discrimination in public venues illegal. 

Peniel Joseph says the events outside the GOP's convention hall affected what went on under its roof. Supporters of the presumed front-runner, liberal New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, were blindsided by the party's well-organized conservative wing, which nominated Arizona's Sen. Barry Goldwater. His nickname was "Mr. Conservative."

Goldwater can be seen as the godfather (or maybe the midwife) of the current Tea Party. He wanted the federal government out of the states' business. He believed the Civil Rights Act was unconstitutional ? although he said that once it had been enacted into law, it would be obeyed. But states, he said, should implement the law in their own time. Many white southerners, especially segregationists, felt reassured by Goldwater's words. Black Americans, says Vince Hutchings, felt anything but:

"African-Americans heard the message that was intended to be heard. Which was that Goldwater and the Goldwater wing of the Republican party were opposed not only to the Civil Rights Act, but to the civil rights movement, in large part, as well."
https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...voters-flee-the-republican-party-in-the-1960s

It's not a coincidence that states that used vote Dems prior to 1960s flipped to deep red there (and still this day) while the reverse occurred in liberal states. 

BTW:

In 1983, 112 federal lawmakers?90 representatives (77 Republicans, 13 Democrats) and 22 senators (18 Republicans, 4 Democrats) voted against commemorating Martin Luther King Jr.?s legacy with a federal holiday on the third Monday in January. Six of them are still in office, joining three others, including Scalise, who voted against the holiday while in office. Twenty current Congressmen who supported the measure are also still in office, including Republicans Sen. Thad Cochran and Sen. Pat Roberts.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/steve-scalise-and-eight-republicans-who-voted-against-mlk-day

Many articles in these newsletters contained statements that were criticized as racist or homophobic. These statements include, "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." An October 1992 article said, "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I?ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense... for the animals are coming." Another newsletter suggested that black activists who wanted to rename New York City after Martin Luther King, Jr. should instead rename it "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," or "Lazyopolis." An article titled "The Pink House" said "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." Another newsletter asserted that HIV-positive homosexuals "enjoy the pity and attention that comes with being sick" and approved of the slogan "Sodomy=Death."[2]

A number of the newsletters criticized civil rights activist Martin Luther King, Jr., calling him a pedophile and "lying socialist satyr". These articles told readers that Paul had voted against making Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a federal public holiday, saying "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_newsletters
 
Back
Top