If Donald Trump marshaled facts like this, he would easily smash Hillary Clinton. But recent Republican presidential nominees have a rather piss-poor track record of marshaling facts.
But here is the path to destroying the Democratic Party in November: pointing out their actual record and the devastation left in the wake of their stupid and frankly wicked policies.
Let’s just look at blacks for a moment. Look at what a pompous, arrogant, fact-free, utterly dishonest Obama said:
“Like the rest of America, black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when I came into office.”
Here are some basic facts about life in black America under President Barack Obama:
- In spite of Obama’s $275 billion in housing-market bailouts, home ownership has waned.
- In the first quarter of 2009, 67.3% of Americans owned homes. By 1Q 2014, the Census Bureau figure was 64.8%.
- Black home ownership has sagged from 46.1% in 2009 to 43.3% in 2014.
- The poverty rate for blacks is now 25.8%.
- Fewer than half of young black men are working a full-time job.
- The black workforce is decreasing, down from 58.6% in June 2007 to 52.8% in August 2012.
- The median minority family’s income is now almost fifth lower than it was when Obama took office with a net worth of just $18,100.
- In contrast, white median wealth has increased by 1% to $142,000.
- In 2009, white households were 7 times richer than black households. Now, white households are 8 times richer.
Tavis Smiley – no friend whatsoever to conservatives – said this about Barack Obama when asked the following direct question by Donald Trump’s bane, Megyn Kelly:
Megyn Kelly: On the subject of race, are we better off today that seven years ago?
Tavis Smiley: I’m not sure we are and I think ultimately the president missed a moment… On every leading economic issue, in the leading economic issues Black Americans have lost ground in every one of those leading categories. So in the last ten years it hasn’t been good for black folk. This is the president’s most loyal constituency that didn’t gain any ground in that period.
Blacks have lost ground ON EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC CATEGORY ACROSS THE BOARD. A vote for a Democrat is a vote to cut your own throat, especially if you are in one of the racial classes that racist Democrats most racially demagogue.
So I came across an article that described the massive black exodus from the liberal West Coast cities mostly to the GOP-bastion southern states, and every black person ought to be told about this. What is going on? It’s pretty simple: if you want to live your life as a worthless loser on the dole, the Democrat Party is the “massah” for you. Don’t you worry, jigaboos, the white man knows you are his burden and you’ll get your meager portion of gruel. The only downside to this arrangement is that that is ALL you will ever be allowed to get for the rest of your lives; because it is literally in the interest of the Democrat Party to keep you down, to keep you poor, because otherwise you would have your own wealth and you not only won’t need the Democrat dole machine, but you would actually become a threat to them as you start voting in such a manner to protect what you earn from your hard work from government taxes; you’ll resent the government regulations that strangle your economic growth. Massa can’t have that on his plantation.
Again, I can point to reliably leftist sources to acknowledge my basic facts. Take the very-left leaning Atlantic title and subtitle:
Why Middle-Class Americans Can’t Afford to Live in Liberal Cities: Blue America has a problem: Even after adjusting for income, left-leaning metros tend to have worse income inequality and less affordable housing.
The article begins thus:
On April 2, 2014, a protester in Oakland, California, mounted a Yahoo bus, climbed to the front of the roof, and vomited onto the top of the windshield.
If not the year’s most persuasive act of dissent, it was certainly one of the most memorable demonstrations in the Bay Area, where residents have marched, blockaded, and retched in protest of San Francisco’s economic inequality and unaffordable housing. The city’s gaps—between rich and poor, between housing need and housing supply—have been duly catalogued. Even among American tech hubs, San Francisco stands alone with both the most expensive real estate and the fewest new construction permits per unit since 1990.
But San Francisco’s problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.
San Francisco’s problem is bigger than San Francisco. Across the country, rich, dense cities are struggling with affordable housing, to the considerable anguish of their middle class families.
Among the 100 largest U.S. metros, 63 percent of homes are “within reach” for a middle-class family, according to Trulia. But among the 20 richest U.S. metros, just 47 percent of homes are affordable, including a national low of 14 percent in San Francisco. The firm defined “within reach” as a for-sale home with a total monthly payment (including mortgage and taxes) less than 31 percent of the metro’s median household income.
If you line up the country’s 100 richest metros from 1 to 100, household affordability falls as household income rises, even after you consider that middle class families in richer cities have more income.
So this brings us to the story of the Democrat Party’s demand for “fair wages” by imposing a $15 minimum wage on every single business whether it can afford it or not. I most recently wrote about that on April 4 of this year. And in that article I documented what happens every single time the left pulls one of these shenanigans. It raises costs on businesses FAR BEYOND the minimum wage, because just for starters it increases the wages of every single worker across the board (i.e., imagine you were making $2 an hour above the minimum wage workers below you at a business; are you now going to earn less than the minimum wage workers, or are you now going to get $17 an hour? It goes up the scale, which is why the unions wanted it and fought so hard for it even though these hypocrite weasels themselves continued to pay substandard wages to the workers they hired to picket and demagogue the cities and states to impose those wages.
It’s not just true of blacks, it’s true of Hispanics as well; it’s true of poor people in general. If you take Democrat’s demagogic policies on illegal immigration, for instance, just consider a fundamental principle of economics known as “the law of supply and demand.” The greater the supply of something, the lower demand for that thing will be. Realize that when you massively increase the supply of poor, unskilled labor, the value of poor, unskilled labor goes down dramatically. Which is why wages for unskilled labor have so plummeted, thank you, liberals.
And so the same damnfools who forced your wages down are now attempting to arbitrarily force them up. So they devastated you by gutting your earning power, and now they’re going to respond by devastating you again by sending already high costs of living into the stratosphere.
Some businesses will go out of businesses, many others will lay off quite a few of their workers and strip their operation down to the bone to stay alive. But of the business that remain, one thing is FOR CERTAIN: they will raise their prices and pass their increased costs onto their customers. And that is merely one of myriad ways that liberals force the cost of living to go up and up and up again and then up some more. Your groceries will cost more and your housing will cost more; and your costs will increase significantly more than the meager boost in wages because Democrats boosted the cost of everything all the way up the chain.
No president has ever been better for the filthy rich than the most dishonest president in American history, Barack Obama. Under his incredibly dishonest and hypocritical regime, income inequality – the gap between the richest and poorest Americans – skyrocketed. Again, I turn to a reliably leftist source in the Huffington Post:
Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
04/11/2012 06:19 pm ET
President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up.
There are lots of reasons to think so — and we’ll touch on several in just a minute — but the most recent comes from Matt Stoller, blogging at Naked Capitalism, who points us toward a recent bit of number-crunching from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.
Saez, who’s known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.
In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush.
This news may not come as a shock if you’re one of the many Americans who lost their job during the recession and couldn’t find another that paid as well. It also might not surprise you if you’re one of the 46 million people living in poverty — a record number, as it happens — or among the millions of Americans who can get by week to week, but would be ruined by a single financial emergency.
You might likewise not be surprised if you already knew that some household-goods companies are catering to this new reality by quietly neglecting their mid-price product lines, focusing instead on their high-end and budget offerings, since wages are diverging so much. Or if you knew that the U.S. ranks closer to China, Serbia and Rwanda than any other country in the developed world when it comes to income inequality.
The disease of Obama is similar to the disease of alcoholism; you’re dying because you kept turning more and more to what was in fact killing you. If you’re a Democrat – and especially if you’re a poor Democrat and most especially if you’re a racial minority Democrat – you’ve succumbed to a diseased pattern of thinking; you have been deceived into believing that what is in actual fact poisoning you and killing you is somehow helping you.
And I believe the metaphor of addiction best describes why so many groups cling to what is killing them: because the more Democrat poison they imbibe, the weaker and sicker they become, the less able to make good decisions. To the end result that it doesn’t matter how horrible this crap is for you, you keep taking it. You’ve lost the will and the ability to do anything else. If you’re a drug addict, you give up your volition to your substance; if you’re a Democrat, you give up your volition to your government. And either way you end up with your soul sucked out of you.
Democrats need you to depend on them; they need you to be flat on your back. They will NEVER allow you to get off your back and earn your own way because if that happened you would vote those weasels out of office who want to seize what you earn and redistribute your wealth to other deceived people. Because these are the kinds of things you have to be fool enough to believe to keep being a Democrat:
- If Democrats raise my taxes, I’ll have more money
- If Democrats bring in 12-20 million more illegal immigrants to compete for my job, my labor will be worth more
- If Democrats raise the cost of living, I’ll be better off
- If Democrats impose restrictive planning regulations, my house or apartment will cost less
- If Democrats regulate my business, I’ll have more opportunities
- The path to freedom is more and more government
Your life sucks because you’re an Obamaholic and your substance is poisoning you body and soul.
Here is that article on blacks fleeing liberal cities in favor of GOP-dominated southern states:
Why has there been an exodus of black residents from West Coast liberal hubs?
By Aaron Renn
May 1, 2016, 5:00 AM
he Black Lives Matter movement has brought the challenges facing black America to the fore, and introduced racially conscious quality-of-life questions into the national debate. How are black residents in America’s cities faring? And how are those cities doing in meeting the aspirations of their black residents, judged especially by the ultimate barometer: whether blacks choose to move to these cities, or stay in them?
Though results vary to some extent, the broad trend is clear: West Coast progressive enclaves are either seeing an exodus of blacks or are failing to attract them. Midwestern and Northeastern urban areas are attracting blacks to the extent that they are affordable or providing middle class economic opportunities. And Southern cities are now experiencing the most significant gains.
Portland is part of the fifth-whitest major metropolitan area in America. Almost 75% of the region is white, and it has the third-lowest percentage of blacks, at only 3.1%. (America as a whole is 13.2% black.) Portland proper is often portrayed as a boomtown, but the city’s shrinking black population doesn’t seem to think so. The city has lost more than 11.5% of its black residents in just four years. It’s similar to Seattle, where the central city’s black population has fallen as the overall region’s has grown.
Lower down the coast, the San Francisco Bay area has lost black residents since 2000, though recent estimates suggest that it may have halted the exodus since 2010. San Francisco proper is only 5.4% black, and the rate is falling. The Los Angeles metro area, too, has fewer black residents today than in 2000.
If these figures merely reflected black consumer choice, they wouldn’t necessarily matter; but the evidence suggests that specific public policies in these cities are to blame. Primary among them are restrictive planning regulations, common along the West Coast, that make it hard to expand the supply of housing. In a market with rising demand and static supply, prices go up.
As a rule, a household should spend no more than three times its annual income on a home. But in West Coast markets, housing-price levels far exceed that benchmark — a hardship that more severely affects blacks than whites because blacks start from further behind economically. Black median household income is only $35,481 a year, compared with $57,355 for whites. The wealth gap is even wider, with median black household wealth at only $7,133, compared with $111,146 for whites.
According to the Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, the “median multiple” — the median home price divided by the median household income — should average about 3.0. But the median multiple is 5.1 in Portland, 5.2 in Seattle, 9.4 in San Francisco and 8.1 in Los Angeles.
“West Coast progressive enclaves are either seeing an exodus of blacks or are failing to attract them.”
Even some on the left recognize how development restrictions hurt lower- and middle-income people. Liberal commentator Matt Yglesias has called housing affordability “Blue America’s greatest failing.” Yglesias and others criticize zoning policies that mandate single-family homes, or approval processes, like that in San Francisco, that prohibit as-of-right development and allow NIMBYism to keep out unwanted construction — and, by implication, unwanted people.
These commentators, however, ignore the role of environmental policy in creating these high housing prices. Portland, for example, has drawn a so-called urban-growth boundary that severely restricts land development and drives up prices inside the approved perimeter. The development-stifling effects of the California Environmental Quality Act are notorious. California also imposes some of the nation’s toughest energy regulations, putting a financial burden on lower-income (and disproportionately black) households. Nearly 1 million households in the state spend 10% or more of their income on energy bills, according to a Manhattan Institute report by Jonathan Lesser.
It’s not just liberal Western cities that are losing their black residents — many economically struggling Midwestern cities have the same problem. Detroit, Cleveland, Flint, and Youngstown all have declining black populations.
The greatest demographic transition is taking place in Chicago. A black population loss of 177,000 accounted for the lion’s share of the city’s total shrinkage during the 2000s. Another 53,000 blacks have fled the city since 2010. In fact, the entire metro Chicago area lost nearly 23,000 blacks in aggregate, the biggest decline in the United States.
But in northern cities with more robust middle-class economies, black populations are expanding. Since 2010, for example, metro Indianapolis added more than 19,000 blacks (6.9% growth), Columbus more than 25,000 (9%), and Boston nearly 40,000 (10.2%). New York’s and Philadelphia’s black population growth rates are low but positive, in line with slow overall regional growth.
The somewhat unlikely champion for northern black population growth is Minneapolis-St. Paul. Since 2010, the black population in the city has grown by 15,000 people, or 23%. The region added 30,400 black residents, growing by 12.1%.
Like Portland and Seattle, Minneapolis is considered a liberal stronghold. But, unlike those West Coast cities, it has cultivated a development environment that keeps housing affordable, with a home-price median multiple of only 3.2.
Similarly, in Columbus (with a median multiple of 2.9) and Indianapolis (also 2.9), black families can afford the American dream. (Boston, with its high housings costs, is an outlier.)
Where else are black Americans moving? One destination dominates: the South. A century ago, blacks were leaving the South to go north and west; today, they are reversing that journey, in what the Manhattan Institute’s Daniel DiSalvo dubbed “The Great Remigration.” DiSalvo found that black Americans now choose the South in pursuit of jobs, lower costs and taxes, better public services (notably, schools) and sunny weather for retirement.
Historically, Southern blacks lived in rural areas. A large rural black population remains in the South today, often living in the same types of conditions as rural whites, which is to say, under significant economic strain. But the new black migrants to the South are increasingly flocking to the same metro areas that white people are — especially Atlanta, the new cultural and economic capital of black America, with a black population of nearly 2 million. The Atlanta metro area, one-third black, continues to add more black residents (150,000 since 2010) than any other region.
In Texas, Dallas has drawn 110,000 black residents (11.3% growth) and Houston just under 100,000 (9.2%) since 2010. Miami, with its powerful Latino presence that includes Afro-Latinos, also added about 100,000 blacks (8.3%). Today, Dallas, Houston, and Miami are all home to more than 1 million black residents.
Many smaller southern cities — including Charlotte, Orlando, Tampa, and Nashville — are seeing robust black population growth as well.
Not surprisingly, these southern cities are extremely affordable. A combination of pro-business policies combined with a development regime that permits housing supply to expand as needed has proved a winner. (Among these southern cities, only Miami, with its massive influx of Latin American wealth, is rated as unaffordable, with a median multiple of 5.6.)
When it comes to how state and local policies affect black residents’ choices about where to live, cities with the West Coast model of liberalism are the worst performing.
These results should be troubling to progressives touting West Coast planning, economic, and energy policies as models for the nation. If wealthy cities like San Francisco and Portland — where progressives have near-total political control — can’t produce positive outcomes for working-class and middle-class blacks, why should we expect their approach to succeed anywhere else?
Aaron M. Renn is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. This piece has been adapted from the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal.
Who would have guessed that pro-business policies, zoning laws that prefer people over leftist environmentalist whining, fewer regulations, and the abandonment of leftist (Stalinist) top-down planning would win? Other than anyone who is NOT A DAMN FOOL???
Democrats guarantee that they will make black people poorer and more dependent. And all Democrats have is demagoguery and lies piled on top of more demagoguery and more lies. But I’ll just end by quoting Forrest Gump:
Okay, that’s good but it doesn’t quite go far enough to describe why we’re where we’re at today. So let me instead end with John Wayne: