What amazes me time and time again is the Svengali-like hold the Dems have over the black community. In the last presidential election, blacks pulled off a 90+% voter turnout for the Democrat ticket. This was even more amazing in that Gore/Lieberman was not an attractive team for many blacks.
My question is, what are you getting for such unwavering loyalty?? As I pointed out in another post, black representation in congress is almost non-existent. The 105th House had 37 blacks out of 435 members. There are no blacks serving in the senate, and only two served in the last 60 years. You can find more blacks in a Johnny Weismuller Tarzan movie than in congress.
And then there's the myth that blacks are better served by Dems. When I came on board here, I was reminded by some of how beneficial the Clinton/Gore years were for blacks. The latest one from Al From, founder and CEO of the Democratic Leadership Council, posted on another topic on this forum......
The data show that between 1993 and 2000, more than 8 million families -- including four million kids -- moved out of poverty, and the total poverty rate fell 25 percent, from 15.1 percent to 11.3 percent, the lowest level since 1974. That's the fastest rate of decline in poverty since Lyndon Johnson's Administration in the 1960s -- more than three times faster than in the Reagan Administration, during which poverty fell seven percent.
Just as significantly, poor families experienced rapid income gains during Clinton's presidency, and black and Hispanic families moved out of poverty faster than white families. By the end of Clinton's terms, black, Hispanic and single-mom families registered their lowest levels of poverty in history.
Unbelievable! Clinton's first two years in office were total failures. He became obsessed with his "don't ask, don't tell policy" for gays in the military, and there was the Hillary Clinton universal healthcare fiasco along with the ill-fated "BTU tax" on energy that was rejected by his own party.
Clinton took office with his party in control of both houses of congress. He never submitted a balanced budget to congress, and every budget he did submit was soundly rejected by his own party along with Republicans. And now Clinton wants to take credit for the growth of blacks and minorities during his term?
I have always said that it was the Reagan years that created the growth of black business and black middle class we know today. I have the numbers to prove it. These numbers will also show that minority growth started long before Clinton had the chance to get Monica in the Oval Office.
Black-owned firms increased 46 percent from 424,165 in 1987 to 620,912 in 1992. Receipts grew at a rate similar to that of all businesses, increasing 63 percent from $19.8 billion to $32.2 billion. Comparable data for all businesses show a 26 percent increase in number from 13.7 million in 1987 to 17.3 million in 1992, while receipts grew 67 percent from $1,995 billion to $3,324 billion.
These figures are from the 1992 Economic Census...
Looks like Reagan and Bush (elder) years were not as bad as Dems say. Looks like Clinton "inherited" a growing economy thanks to Reagan and Bush (elder). Notice how Mr. From gives no specifics as to what policies Clinton instituted to bring about this "minority miracle".
Clinton is no "New Democrat". Just the same old tax and spend Democrat out to grow more government. The black community needs to realize that the more their money stays in Washington, the less they will ever see real prosperity.
Sorry for the long-winded post, but this has been brewing up inside me too long. Had to let it out!