This upcoming election has a lot at stake. In fact every election does. In this election, women are at the forefront of the discussion. Everything from equal pay, to health care, to a right to choose is up for debate. For me, this race is rather personal because I am a part of two minorities groups that are being held back in one way or another. I am a woman and I happen to be African-American which is an extra strike against me. However, I will not let that discourage me from voting and ensuring that policy makers work with my community to develop solid relationships and alleviate my concerns. That's my responsibility as a registered voter. I just hope that other African-American women will speak up with their ballots in November too. We can't afford to be quiet any more.
African-American Women are making greater strides today than we did in the past. We have advanced in education, have higher incomes, and are running households and corporations all over America. That's pretty impressive. In fact, during the 2008 election Black women voters had the highest turnout among all racial, ethnic and gender groups with 68.8 percent. That proves to me that we can really turn the numbers around in this election. I hope that we all can see the value in making political connections. It can make our lives so much easier.
African-American and young citizen votes in general are critical and any smart candidate knows it. The US Census Bureau reported two million more African-Americans voted in the 2008 elections than in 2004 (gee I wonder why). In 2008 about 49% of voters ages 18 to 24 cast ballots which was up from 47% in 2004. The turnout among young black voters was 55%, eight percentage points higher than four years earlier. Also, turnout among blacks, Hispanics and Asians increased by four percentage points in 2008 from four years earlier, while turnout by white non-Hispanics was down by one percentage point. I am concerned though that young people won't step up their game. That same Census Bureau report also showed that fewer than half of 18-24 year-olds who are registered said they went to the polls, and 42% said they aren’t even registered. By comparison, turnout was 69% among voters ages 45 to 64 and 72% among voters 65 to 74. I don't know what it will take to motivate that group more but it better happen quickly.
If you think there isn't a war on women, think again. We have made some significant advances but I am not fooled into thinking that the playing field is leveled now. Think about it. Before the Affordable Care Act came into play there were insurance companies that actually refused to pay for mammograms. That is absurd. Governor Romney and US Representative Ryan want to limit women's choices right here in the land of the free. Ryan has already shown that he is anti-abortion and he voted to defund Planned Parenthood. He also voted against the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay act. As far as I can see, Gov. Romney has really taken no position on fair pay (which is a cop out. But that's my opinion). These issues will continue to be an obstacle in the effort to keep our country moving forward. I worry that many people don't see that women (not just African-American women) continue to be left behind in America and think that as long as they are healthy and can earn a few pennies, they shouldn't complain. What kind of freedom is that?
For me the race issue simply cannot be ignored. I grew up with a father in my household who was reared in the segregated South during the 1950's and 1960's. So I have heard many stories about how far my people have come in fighting for equality. I fully understand why we should take full advantage of the chance to vote. There is an ugly race war going on within this election. The hints of racism are actually not hints at all but outright attacks ("food stamp president", "doesn't represent our values", etc.) Thank you to Chris Matthews who pointed these out so clearly on a recent episode of Morning Joe. I don't believe that every White person that doesn't vote for Obama is a racist. But there are plenty of racists that will casts their ballot for the Republican party candidate simply to defeat a Black man. If African-American women are as outraged by that sentiment as I am, they will fight fire with fire and cast their votes in support of him.
It's time to say 'no more'. African-American women have power in the boardroom, the classroom, in the church, in the community and at home. I hope we make it a point to use that power to select the best candidate to carry us forward for the next four years.
In summary Randy, I'd say the chances that Larry is waiting for that check are pretty good.
Of course Larry, it was perfectly acceptable when Biden said: "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." Credit: http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-31/politics/biden.obama_1_braun-and-al-sharpton-african-american-presidential-candidates-delaware-democrat?_s=PM:POLITICS Of course, you just walked right into that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/almost-half-of-all-americans-households-government-benefits_n_996990.html
Thanks Randy for pulling that article from a nice liberal website.
What risk is there if they just pay equitably by education and experience rather than gender?
They'd be rightly offended that someone would cater to a race that by and large gets privileges through a culture that is permeated with racism instead of striving for equity of opportunity despite ones background, an American principle.
http://www.stosselintheclassroom.org/essay_contest/first_place/ The Heritage Foundation's Andrew Grossman speculated that The Ledbetter Act would lead to a myriad of unintended consequences. "Foremost," he said, "it would push down both wages and employment, as businesses change their operations to avoid lawsuits. Perversely, it could actually put women, minorities, and workers who are vocal about their rights at a disadvantage if employers attempt to reduce legal risk by hiring fewer individuals likely to file suit against them or terminating those already in their employ." Grossman's prediction is supported, in part, by U.S. Census Bureau data analyzed by the National Committee on Pay Equity. In 2008, women were earning 77.1% cents of every dollar earned by men. The following year it dropped to 77%, and it ticked up to 77.4% by 2010. The difference was .3% over two years; virtually no change.
Obviously, people who pay into govt. programs their whole life and then get some of it back to supplement their retirement income is not even close to being "dependent on the government". Also obvious is the fact that 1 member of a household collecting benefits doesn't mean the whole household is "dependent on the government". The statement in question is flat dumb and lacks even basic common sense and intelligence.
I rest my case.
Randy's point, I'm sure was not that somebody from the Wall Street Journal wrote the article, it was the fact that the numbers are so bad that even the Huffinigton Post could turn a blind eye to it. The article was dated 2011, more recent data indicates this number is now over 50%. If I'm dependent on the Government, my kids are too if they are living in my household. I don't care how you parse the data jag, the fact is there are too many people are dependent on the government. For the life of me, I don't understand how you cannot grasp the ultimate outcome if this trend continues. I don't care what type of benefit or assistance you are receiving, in order to prevent a total collapse the "takers" cannot out number the "makers". Public sector jobs need to be created to keep this equation in balance. Think about on your trip to the mailbox to receive your check.
Collecting on basic social services that have been pre-paid is, obviously, not being "dependent on government". Also obvious is the fact that just because 1 person in the household (whether a disabled child, a senior citizen, whatever) collects said basic social service does not mean the entire household is "dependent on the government". If you honestly can't understand those basic facts then there's no point in talking to you. And I probably pay more in taxes every year than you do in 10, so feel free to chill with the dumb insults.
It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that there has to be more people paying into the system than those taking out. By all means though, keep thinking that everything is "pre paid". Forget all about the fact that the national debt is: $ 1 6 , 0 6 1 , 3 7 5 , 4 6 4 , 0 9 5 . 0 7 No worries. Congratulations on paying x10 more in takes than me. Not sure how you arrived at that, seeing as you do not know me, but if that makes you feel better so be it. Assuming you do pay that much, it's hard to believe you hold the beliefs that you do.
Like yourself, I would like to get out what I have paid in - everyone who has paid would like this. At this point, that's a pipe-dream. Wake up. As you put it, The end. If you have miss-managed your own financial situation and failed to adequately prepare yourself for retirement, then that is your own unfortunate doing and you are by the very definition dependent on the government. What will you do when the Government checks stop coming...
How do you figure that? The law says it is 180 days from the last discriminatory act, and it actually returns to form the standard precedent set before the supreme court changed the interpretation. http://www.humanresourcesiq.com/benefits-compensation/articles/human-resources-action-plan-for-the-lilly-ledbette/ explains: "Prior to Ledbetter, the EEOC and most federal courts applied the paycheck accrual rule. Under the paycheck accrual rule, each paycheck that delivered discriminatory compensation to an employee was a wrong actionable under the federal antidiscrimination statutes regardless of when the discrimination began. While Ledbetter lost her case, she ignited a campaign to restore the paycheck accrual rule. During the 2008 presidential election campaign, Ledbetter became the symbol for equal pay for women. With a stroke of a pen, on January 29, 2009, President Obama overturned the Supreme Court’s decision and restored the paycheck accrual rule." BHO: "Thirty years later the company may have grown and a woman could come back and sue even with no case." Again how is that possible under the 180 day limit of the law? If there is no case then what would the suit matter?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/03/13103583-a-decade-of-jobs-numbers?lite