This say presupposes that someone doesn't have something to lose. Or that their state of being, is so low, it can't be any worse. It's a sentiment that isn't often taken very well by the intended audience. But just for the sake of argument, let's entertain it. The question, I'd have to ask, is "what have I got to gain?" and "why would supporting him allow me to attain it?" and "what has prevented me from getting it in the first place on my own?"
Should I expect Democrats to do things for Black people, other than defend my rights? Please tell me. I'm all ears.
I can see why people would perceive the question that way. I don't think that's the context of the statement though. It's more like, after supporting Democrats for many decades, what have they done for black people? And if you decide, not very much, then what have you to lose? If you live in inner city Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Democrats have called the shots for decades and over those decades, those communities have declined. Those policies aren't working. That's what that statement addresses. I'm not making any claims about whether people have anything to lose or not by voting for a Republican. I'm just saying that's the context intended.
You tell me. From whence comes the hatred of the Bad Orange Man? I thought it was because he wasn't doing enough for the people of Puerto Rico and the people of Baltimore and the people of [watch this space]
So it sure seems like you are of the impression that the Democrats are doing whatever you suppose Trump is not. All I've seen is Trump trying to get government out of their way if they want to do it for themselves, and try to incentivize business properly to make things in this country so that good jobs are available without 'learning to code'
The national debt is what...$22 trillion? We could discuss how the entire amount gets paid down (taxes, printing more money, which causes inflation/hyper-inflation---another form of tax, selling off/exchanging US assets for debt (give Yosemite to the Chinese, for example. Or sell off mineral rights).
Most of those approaches are draconian. As Cheney said "Deficits don't matter". To a certain extent, that is true in prudently managed scenarios. But politics and prudence are somewhat mutually exclusive.
Get government out of whose way?
Don't white people live in those places? Why are they excluded?
Business owners, presumably.
Of course white people live in those places too. But, we're talking about the black community as a voting bloc. It's reasonable to talk about them specifically.This question makes it sound like you're trying to play both ends.
The reach is infinite since there is no effort nor even desire to stop increasing the deficit.Cheney is an idiot. Deficits do matter because as the debt goes up, so does the payment line item in the budget. The interest on the national debt is nearly $500B for 2020. That's money that could be used for more useful things. As long as we run deficits, the debt goes higher, the interest goes higher. Of course there are some things that the government can do about that, but none of those things come without other political and financial consequences. Manageable deficits don't matter as much. And it's not so bad to have debt as a nation, but manageable debt, not absurdly impossible debt that reaches far into future generations.
Don't white people live in those places? Why are they excluded?
It's a failure of will, but more importantly it's a failure of trust
It wouldn't be terribly difficult to come up with a plan to stop digging the hole (end deficit sopending) and add a minimal surcharge onto taxes dedicated to existing debt reduction. It could be entirely retired in something like 38 years, but the boon for investors would take place long before then
The problem is, no one trusts congress to keep their hands out of any new money we allow them to have; nor can a multi-decade mechanism be envisioned to accomplish the project which couldn't be corrupted. Thus, an attempt to fix the problem won't be made until it becomes large enough to force the issue - by which time it might not be soluble without a whole lot of pain
So white people in those places aren't worthy of being pandered too? Well, that assumes that they are subject to the same wants and needs as other people.
You sure remember something totally different than I do. In 73 the the oil embargo began a series of devastating economic dominos falling. For the first time ever unions were give wage adjustments. Unemployment was high and the markets were down. Crime was rampant. McDonalds in Noblesville had 400 applications for a single maintenance position. Yep it was a high rolling time. Not everyone did bad, but if one was starting at the bottom in late 70's or early 80's it was not until the Regan economy took off that the growth began...
I would agree that it takes more than just simply posing the question of "What have you got to lose?" There is no guarantee that everyone would prosper.This say presupposes that someone doesn't have something to lose. Or that their state of being, is so low, it can't be any worse. It's a sentiment that isn't often taken very well by the intended audience. But just for the sake of argument, let's entertain it. The question, I'd have to ask, is "what have I got to gain?" and "why would supporting him allow me to attain it?" and "what has prevented me from getting it in the first place on my own?"
Are you saying black people can’t benefit from business friendly policies? You’re making this into a problem it’s not. It’s fair enough if you’re saying this is how the black community would interpret it. But then that’s where a synthesis of understanding between what is said and what is understood is necessary. And that was what I was attempting to do.It may be a misuse of pronouns, but that doesn't seem to be what the sentence implies.
Are you saying black people can’t benefit from business friendly policies? You’re making this into a problem it’s not. It’s fair enough if you’re saying this is how the black community would interpret it. But then that’s where a synthesis of understanding between what is said and what is understood is necessary. And that was what I was attempting to do.
Disingenuous. Conservatives live in California, too; but they don't have the power to change their lot. The black people in the places jamil mentioned, who have been voting en bloc for Democrats for a long time, absolutely have the power to change their lot (because they are in the majority). Whether they judge the results better or worse remains to be seen. Jump off the cliff first, build their wings on the way down