In a recent article in "Colorlines: News For Action" entitled “The Long Racial History of the Tea Party’s Deficit Trojan Horse,” the author states the same old arguments about how Tea Party racism along with Conservatives and Republicans have fought long and hard to keep African-Americans down. It is difficult to understand the reasoning behind the author’s jump from Confederates to the Tea Party.
First, looking at history, it was the Republican Party who fought for Civil Rights and it was the Democratic Party that fought tooth and nail against it. The author also uses the Tea Party racism argument saying that because they believe in States Rights, they want this country to go back to the days of slavery; this is not true. When the Tea Party Movement refers to “States Rights” they refer to limiting the federal government to what is allowed in the Constitution, all else should be controlled by the states. Civil Rights is a Federal Law.
But the biggest flaw in the article is when the author makes the statement:
“And much like their political ancestors, modern conservatism invokes the bloated government bogeyman to oppose all efforts at racial justice. By undermining the ability of the federal government to raise revenue and targeting what remains of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society” – Colorlines
This raises the question, if LBJÂ’s Great Society was working so well, why in the next paragraph does the author point out that
“A quarter of all African Americans live in poverty today, compared to 14 percent of Americans overall and 9 percent of whites. African Americans account for nearly a quarter of those receiving food assistance. More than a quarter of African Americans get health care through Medicaid. The typical black family has a dime for every dollar of wealth held by the typical white family.” – Colorlines
This shows that the increased spending on entitlement programs has had the complete opposite effect of what was intended. The government throws more money at the problem and yet blacks are still poor, still uneducated and unemployed. Could this have anything to do with the fact there is no incentive for them to work? These programs have done nothing but destroy the structure of the African-American family. No longer do they feel the need to keep families together, in fact it can be argued that government entitlement programs encourage families to break apart.
How can the black community complain about the lack of racial equality and social justice when all they need to do is look to the highest office in the land to see it being held by the first black President, Barack Obama, it has ever had? Whether one agrees with the President or not, this if nothing else should prove to any child, black, white, brown or yellow that anyone in the United States who works hard and strives to be the best, can truly become anything they want.
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 54
Want to see my reasoning on this and related subjects, check this out:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979200296
Sweet irony.
However politicians will lie and call them “Poor” as though the government had nothing to do with enslaving people to that station. A good percentage of the so called “Poor” are capable of being self-sufficient.
And, how many friggin' years did that take???
Stupid conclusion? I put it to you that the entire slave concept in America is so engrained into the very psyci of America that even kind people like yourself who wish to run from it can't. Being color bind is not easy but to truly embrace it one must tear down the walls that create color sensitivity.
ONe more time for the brainwashed who refuse to get it. The great exodus came about because of the civil rights movement. Racists dems joined the Repub party because the Dem Party was FOR civil rights.
Read this article:
There is an awful lot of misinformation and untruth out there about the legacy of the two major political parties and the civil rights movement. Conservatives often like to use slight of hand, insisting that because the early Republican party was stronger in support of civil rights, this means that conservatives have the moral high ground. This is totally untrue.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/01/13/history-
democrats-republicans-on-civil-rights-equality/
Republicans FOR Civil rights!!! Gawd only an idiot....,
State rights?? Yeah! to KEEP lunchrooms and restrooms for whites only!
But I also see racism in the Republican party, Democratic Party and among people who have never voted and have no political affiliation.
I see Obama as the man who can straighten things out for the large majority of Americans. The Rich (those who make $250K a year or more) comprise only 2% of the population yet make nearly 50% of the total income of the USA and own over 90% of America’s wealth. During the Clinton Administration the wealthy paid higher taxes yet created more jobs than they do now. The rich were happy then yet the Republicans insist on making taxes even lower for those folks. Only goes to show they don’t really care for the little guy even if they make up 98% of the population of the United States.
The debt ceiling has to be raised to help assure foreign investors and debt holders that America is good for what it owes (according to Obama). Obama has a $4 Trillion deficit cut in spending for America in 12 months. All parties agree with that number. The Obama plan is fairer for all Americans. The Republican plan favours the rich claiming the rich will create jobs and their taxes will pay down the debt. This does not mention less benefits, wages and more work load. Look at how McDonalds created 50,000 jobs last week at $8 an hour average (no benefits, no retirement plan). Those jobs were snapped up in one day. My point is this; why not make the Democrats the majority party in the House next election so this budget problem can be made right for all Americans. Having the Republicans split the House is costing America a fortune. Vote Obama, be colour blind and save Democracy. If Obama weren’t black, I’d swear he was white. If he is being the bigger man by being colour blind, why can’t you?!!!
You know damb well this debt problem will not be solved by the next election because the House is so divided. The next election will either be majority Democrat or split minority either way. If it is split, another term where nothing gets done will occur and America will make the last Depression look like it was fun. Wake up America, the race card is getting serious!!!
ority You forget, for the first two years of the Obama Presidency he had the majority in both the House and the Senate and they did nothing. They not only didn't pass a budget, they didn't even propose one. They also held the majority in both houses for the last two years of the Bush Presidency.
I assume you are from Canada, (pretty sharp huh when I see your flag) how is your healthcare system working?
Here is the crux of the problem with taking from the rich and spreading the wealth, eventually the rich send their money elsewhere as well as jobs. here is something I wrote, on this, and you can find links to my other economics articles.
Sooner or later those of us who pay for those who don't will decide we are better off being dependent on the Government as well, then what happens? The Government produces nothing in this country.
I will assume none of you who claim to know all about the Tea Party and their motives have never actually been to one. For the record I was the same before I actually went to one, and I will not spend my time on this article defending the Tea Party movement to those who all they know about it comes from the left leaning media.
My question is how can you argue with the facts? Blacks are worse off now as far as poverty and even education then before the Civil Rights Act was passed. They have been given all the opportunities they have asked for yet they are poorer than they were, there is more crime then there ever was among blacks, more blacks kill other blacks then ever before, there is no family structure any longer. These are facts. So throwing more money obviously hasn't worked.
Calling tea partiers and Republicans racist is always the answer for the left. When they can't come up with a rational argument they call the other side names like racists, teabaggers etc.
So someone please explain to me what is racist about wanting blacks to be able to provide for themselves when they are given everything they claim they need? That is the issue here and not whether I or anyone else is racist. Democrats and liberals like nothing better than to keep every group separate and at odds with each other.
I will place a link here, read it, and then we can continue the discussion. And really, thanks for reading and commenting. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/marcus/110413
His comparison between liberal dad and conservative dad is ridiculous. Liberal dad is not a liberal, he is stupid. Any father who allows his son to stay home because work is hard is stupid.
Liberalism does not cause poverty, people do. Liberalism does not cause black women to get pregnant. Liberalism does not cause fathers to walk out on their families. Liberalism does not create apathy. People create apathy. Liberalism does not cause a breakdown in standards and morals. People cuase a breakdown in standards and morals.
Do liberals advocate sharing the wealth? Absolutely! It is something this country has done since it's founding. The people who have more resources help those who have less. Does it get taken advantage of? Absolutely! This doesn't mean liberalism is at fault. When Tea Party members and the current crop of Republicans advocate cutting funding to social programs but fight to let oil companies keep $4 billion in subsidies when companies like ExxonMobil earn $31 billion in profits, that is a problem.
Racism exists and I'm not blaming the Tea Party. There are blacks who are lazy and would prefer to live on welfare than get a job. I know some of them. But a lot of them are stuck in a situation they can't get out of. To push all blacks under the same umbrella is unfair.
Blacks are not given everything they want. You think because you throw some food stamps and a public school at them, you've done your good deed? How about providing the same resources for minority schools as for white schools? How about we stop trying to segregate neighborhoods?
As a black man who has graduated from college, has a wife, and a child who was conceived years after marriage, I am offended by Lloyd Marcus' article and this one as well.
Why isn't a wage of $8.30 an hour not good? Because, when businesses are taxed to death, they have to raise their prices to cover those costs. When unions make foolish demands and force all employees to lower their production to that of the lowest producer, prices go up. It is simple economics.
Will there always be racism? Yes
Should we all be working toward a color blind society? Yes
Is the Tea Party Racist? Really?
You judge:
Mission Statement
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets.
Where is the Racism?
As a conservative I work hard to be self reliant I believe that it is our obligation as citizens to do as much for ourselves as possible. That may mean that I don’t produce as much as the next guy and more than another.
Can everyone be self sufficient? No
Do some people have a legitimate need for a safety net? Yes
These are the kicker:
Should politicians punish those who work hard?
Should politicians profit from someone else’s handicaps?
Should politicians encourage abuse of the system to personally profit?
Should politicians twist and contort the language to lie and cover up these frauds?
No!
Call evil what it is, evil!
Republicans think inside the box of their own social circles. They see the poor a source of wealth that will fund the government programs. The history of the United States was built by those who take advantage of the underprivileged majority. Why do you think illegal immigration was not a big issue for George W. Bush (Republican). He even stated publicly that he had to do the will of big business on that issue. The Political leaders of America are also considered rich and can’t imagine going on welfare or needing any government funded social program. The only reason the Democrats relate to the poor is because of their leader, Obama, someone who worked up from the oppressed and working class. Why can’t people see that in America? The rich are taking advantage of 98% of the population and the two parties are clearly split along that issue, not race! It is so obvious, what is wrong with you people?
Yes, American history has shown that the "minorities" in your country have always taken the majority of the social programs. They used to be slaves and most red necks hate them because it makes them look impressive in their own minds. That has to stop if democracy is to continue. If I had people look down on me every time I stand in line at the food bank that would make me either depressed or angry enough to want to get even. Be the bigger people, understand the other, this is go time or stay time. What would Jesus do? Don’t claim omnipotence by saying you are not religious, WHAT WOULD THE BIBLE CHARACTER OF JESUS DO? #1 Have faith in the leader, in your case, Obama. That man has faith in America and what it stands for, maybe you all should do the same for him. Remember how Presidents were looked up to when J.F.K was around? How about before him? He has a workable vision for us all, give him the power to make it happen! If you don’t, Islamic fundamentalism or even Red China has a better chance than you do.
Tea Partiers are independent of the Republican party (again I suggest you read some of my writings on HubPages) they are independents.
Jesus would want individuals to give to the poor and oppressed on their own, because they wanted to, not because they are forced to through taxes.
Mark thank you again for the comments, I appreciate the chance to have rational, thoughtful discussion.
much of the world can see The United States as heading
for Economic Armageddon. I personally don't want this to
happen and I just want to open at least one person's
eyes to the truth like yourself. Try to keep an open mind.
Obama is not the problem if you doubt his education.
Maybe he had an easier upbringing compared to most
Americans but to tell you the truth, that is the same for
most top leaders in the world. The School of Hard Knocks
just makes one hard, not happy. Hard to make someone
turn from their beliefs if life just doesn't seem worth the
effort to lead others in an optimistic way.
I hope you consider college work. 5 classes
per-semester is very difficult and requires a lot of work.
Starting at age 6, Obama attended a Catholic school in
Indonesia. At age 8, he attended a public school in
Indonesia, nominally a Muslim school, which is where the
"Muslim" tempest in a teapot comes form.
At age 10, he left his mother and Muslim stepfather behind
in Indonesia, moving to Honolulu to live with his Mom's
parents. His grandmother was a Vice President for the
Bank of Hawaii and was able to afford to send him to the
prestigious private college preparatory Punahou School,
still considered the finest school in Hawaii. He attended
there from 5th grade, and graduated from high school
there in 1979.
Obama then attended Occidental College, a fine liberal
arts college in Los Angeles from 1979 to 1981. He
admittedly was a bit of a party animal there. He apparently
got a bit more serious his sophomore year and transferred
to Columbia University in New York City for his junior and
senior years, graduating from Columbia in 1983.
After graduation, Obama worked in New York in a corporate
position for a year, then a non-profit position for another
year before making the fateful decision to move to Chicago
in 1985. He worked from 1985 to 1988
as a director of the "Developing Communities Project" a small
time non-profit that seems to have been started for him to run.
From 1988 to 1991 Obama attended Harvard Law School,
graduating magna cum laude and was editor of the Law review.
So the guy is very smart and had the finest possible education
from 5th grade on!
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_did_Barack_
Obama_go_to_school#ixzz1KqPhS0Jp
opinion? Is it right to pay taxes?" Mathew 22:21 "Give to Caesar what is
Caesar's, and to God what is God's." Caesar was where taxes ended up
back then and he decided what to do with them.
Obama wants to raise taxes for the top 2% of Americans so they pay their
fair share, more like it was back during the Clinton administration. Every
time a corporation hires someone, that someone's job was created to
increase profits. That is only because democracy allows for that corporation
to grow in their profits. Without democracy, other forms of government no
longer feels the pressure to reform and make their ways seem competitive
in the open market place. If the United States and freedom fails, places like
Red China can go back to total control of their citizens. Talk about
repression! That joint venture of the UK and Hong Kong only seems to
continue because the Chinese government knows the outrage of Hong
Kong's citizens and the west. Free enterprise is doomed without the
protection of Democracy. I'm sure you agree. Shouldn't people who
make more money pay the same percentage of their income as those
who work for them? The old saying, 'give them an inch, they'll take a
mile.' Big business has become so used to paying less taxes that they
expect it, in fact, they want even more. If they move their companies,
it will not be because of lesser taxes. It will because of cheap slave
labour like Mexico, India and China. Those countries only have any
success because of the cheap labour they get. A perfect example is
the United Arab Emirates slave labour camp. http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/dark_side_of_du.html
Most business majors in college have to take a little course called
"Ethics". Any business leader that leaves the safe shores of democracy
just to add more millions or billions to their profit margin are just not
worth having. They are traitors to their country, democracy and to the
human race. Their void in the economy will be met by new young
entepenures that will fill that need. I have more faith in human
beings than that though. What kind of person could do such a thing?
I know that many have already done that but that did not collapse
the economy. The whole world is suffering right now because of
speculators and fear mongering. Look at the price of oil and gas.
There is currently a gluttony of oil reserves yet the price continues
to go up. just plain stupid! The #1 supplier of oil to the United States
is the United States. The #2 supplier is Canada and #3 is Mexico,
again how stupid is the people on Wall Street? Not too stupid if all
the profits for this ends up in their hands. Read this and weep==>>
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level
_imports/current/import.html
1. hide their profits by sending them offshore.
2. Stop investing and reinvesting in their businesses.
Why would anyone bother working harder if all they make goes to the Government? Also, what tends to be overlooked, is Obama also wants to raise taxes on small businesses as well, which will hurt them and cause them to fail. This is one of the main reasons I closed my businesses.
Oil production in the US is down, we can no longer drill in the gulf. Oil companies won't drill new wells because of the bs they have to deal with. The latest is in Texas where they won't let them drill because of some kind of lizard.
Obama wants gas to be high, he wants the economy to fail, he wants us all the be basically slaves.
Now. On taxation. Where do we stop cutting? What is an appropriate level of taxation? Shall we go back to before federal income taxes? As I recall, there was slavery then... and not Socialist slavery, either. Capitalist slavery. Businessmen who made huge amounts of money by selling goods created by someone else without paying said someone else a dime... they just fed them and housed them and told them they could never leave. That's where laissez faire capitalism leads. Slavery. Because, ultimately, it's about the bottom line. Anything the company or businessman can do to make profits higher, they will.
That's why someone has to be above those businesses, to reign them in. That's what government does.
We need income taxes. There's no proven correlation between tax cuts and economic booms, either. There have been boom times with tax hikes and busts with tax cuts. Truthfully, there's very little connection between the two, as the economy depends on so much more than fiscal policy. That said, raising taxes above a certain level, isn't guaranteed to increase revenue. Since revenue is dependent so heavily on business growth which relies on the economy which isn't dependent on fiscal policy, it's like riding a tiger, you cannot be sure which way it's going to buck. Now, however, we have the lowest revenue we've had in a very long time and among the highest outlay of all time... now is not the time to decrease revenue. Lower taxes, at least in the short term, will result in less revenue which we can ill afford. In the longer term there's very little correlation to be found, so we'll just have to rely on the economy.
Ultimately, the idea that we can continue cutting taxes indefinitely is ridiculous. At some point, taxes have to go back up. We'll survive. We've had worse taxes before.
I agree that some taxes are necessary, those that are used to pay for what is authorized in the Constitgution. We have to cut spending. We have to stop paying for programs which don't produce anything. We have to shrink the size of Government because it doesn't produce anything.
If everyone takes from the Government pot and no one puts anything in, sooner or later we will run out. If you continue to take business, and the rich, eventually they will decide it is no longer worth it for them to continue producing and they too will become takers.
We've got programs that protect workers from being abused by their employers (again, since its a negative-type program, when it works you see nothing), that prevent certain kinds of speculation in the markets, etc etc. All these programs "produce nothing". But they prevent bad people (enemies foreign and domestic) from hurting Americans (something that we want the Feds to do).
As to the rich, many of them put a large amount of their income back into the economy with businesses and not-for-profits and the like. But many also just sit on large volumes of cash and collect the bank's interest. These latter, then, are not contributing significantly to the economy. I'm all for ensuring that, when the well-off build businesses and create jobs giving them huge tax breaks and making sure they keep as much of that income as possible to create even more jobs. But when you have wealthy people who spend a small fraction of their enormous incomes a year and choose not to reinvest that wealth back into the economy... that I find offensive.
Low wages are not the result of Union activity, just the opposite! Unions take worker demands to the table to negotiate with Labour Associations for fairness and equality of wages and benefits. Union abuse of power is the same as market share on Wall Street. Simple market share, supply and demand dictate abuse. GM will be the #1 auto manufacturer again and the Auto Unions will create better work conditions based on that. The only comparable Union with absolute power is the Teacher Unions in the States. Funny how just a few years ago teachers were considered under paid. Just the same, the benefits are really good with Tenure automatically granted were as Tenure at the College level takes 3 years wait time. Abuse comes from bad teachers keeping their jobs no matter the student's results. Watch the American movie called “Waiting For Superman” In Canada, teachers receive a permanent teaching certificate after two years but tenure is never given.
Reform America! Not everything is Black and White. Take the best of every society and keep it for yourselves. Take the lessons of the past and use them to form a better and more lasting union. Fairness and equality must exist in the most tiny detail to the largest general political party platforms. Equality is not just a theory, some obtuse idealism that people use to gain the popularity vote. It is the very foundation of Democracy and without a solid foundation it will collapse. Everyone must be on board with this. The budget debate is not about whether or not Capitalism will fail, but whether Freedom will.
The teachers unions are the ones who have allowed poor teachers to be employed for ever. It is not the wages which are the problem, it is the benefits (insurance). When those of us in the private sector do not see raises and have to pay more and more for our health insurance, not to mention we no longer have any pensions as the PS unions collect more and more, that is the problem. My taxes pay for that, and I can no longer afford it.
You don't mind paying for an obese, unemployed, chain smoker who when he is hospitalized causes your costs to skyrocket?
I have missed on whether or not America is currently running the government without being covered by it's creditors. Again, America has to put all the power decisions in the hands of the Democrats or the Republicans. Why the Democrats did not impose a budget when they had the majority is still a mystery to me but I heard the then House Rep. would not even put the budget up for debate despite the Democrats actually having one prepared. I'd have to guess priorities being the problem judging by how much time is wasted talking about it now. War was the agenda at the time.
This starts a cycle, raise taxes, people "earn" less money, now your union friends want higher wages, who pays for the higher wages? Eventually the wage earner.
If my tax dollars are going to pay for someone's healthcare because they have made poor or stupid decisions, then should I not have some say on how they live their lives as their choices causes my health insurance rates to go up because of the increase in healthcare costs? If you are living off my dime, I should be able to stop you from smoking. But no, the left won't let that happen, people need to be free. Well their right to be free, includes my right to be free from them.
And who knows why the Democrats didn't even try to submit a budget. My thoughts? First they never thought they would lose the majority in Nov '10 and second they would rather do nothing so they can then hammer those who actually try.
You don't support unions because you wish you had all those juicy benefits; jealous? Envy is such a poor argument. Union workers pay the same taxes but you don't hear them complaining as much but they have the collective stength to do something about it. Think about it, you should be getting a pension too, so should everbody. You should pay lower taxes but the rich to upper middle class should pay their fair share and unions support that reasoning, you should support us. There is more power in numbers and you know it!
So let me ask you a question: Why don't the unions actually run the businesses, could it be they couldn't make a profit and therefore could not pay the janitor $30 an hour?
Do you really think the union president gives a rat's ass about the union members?
Actually much government regulation stops Unions from really taking hold of the reins of business. I'm sure those who want less government might grab this and say this is another reason to cut government control. These rules are actually imposed by Lobbyist and Special Interest Groups that fund political campaigns that the winning politicians are obliged to impose. Happened very clearly on our last Canadian Alberta election. A Special Interest Group known as The Merit System for Non-Unionized Workers funded our now Premier Ed Stalmack to cut a Unionized funded program known as Market Recovery Money. This money was charged to Unionized Companies by the Union which intern was refunded back to them to offset the higher skilled and educated workers income when bidding on larger projects. Merit claimed this was unfair. On the other hand, the Union claims Non-Unionized Workers are unfair on the bidding because the work is mainly done by unskilled low paid workers with little supervision. The Bill put forward to stop Market Recovery was successful (depends on your point of view). The result so far has been 3500 unemployed Journeyman in the Union and the quality of work on the winning side had been proven to be sub par.
Do you really think the union president gives a rat's ass about the union members? I'll have to hope so, the previous wage negotiations raised them. The current contract kept them the same despite the current financial crisis. He must give a "rat's ass."
Most union leaders only care about one thing, getting their piece of each union members dues, they could care less about the union member. Their only concern is making sure the union doesn't lose members. Union membership in the private sector is decreasing because the membership sees the handwriting on the wall. Unions can be good, I won't argue that, but in the case of private unions they are killing companies.
The difference between private and public unions is that in the case of private unions, the company has a choice, if it can't afford the unions demands they can close shop. Public service unions don't have that option.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979444737