Groups who voted for Obama see increase in unemployment rate

Stupid is as stupid does. Those of us who have a clue about what an incompetent Socialist Obama is frequently ask ourselves "Why would anyone vote for this fool?" Well, of course, there's the "free" stuff and the black skin--and I guess that's enough if your IQ equals your shoe size. But here's proof that the two groups that gave us "Obama Part II" are even more clueless then we imagined.

December's employment report shows an increase in the unemployment rate for women (from 7.0 to 7.3 percent) and a significant increase for blacks (from 13.2 to 14.0 percent). I guess a candidate's skin color trumps his woeful inability to run the country.

Just more motivation for those of us who can't stand what Obama is doing to our Country to modify our behavior. Get all of the tax breaks you can, don't donate to charities who cater to the people who voted us into this mess, and speak out without fear of being called names that end with "ist."

Unemployment Rises for Women, African-Americans in December
By Matt Cover
January 4, 2013
Subscribe to Matt Cover's posts

( – Government unemployment numbers for December showed that while the general unemployment rate remained flat at 7.8 percent, unemployment for women and African-Americans rose despite an economy that created 155,000 jobs.

Unemployment for women rose to 7.3 percent in December from 7.0 percent while the rate for African-Americans rose sharply to 14.0 percent from 13.2 percent in November.
Unemployment among African Americans has remained quite high throughout the sluggish economic recovery of the past several years, despite the steady decline in overall unemployment in the economy generally.

The number of employed African Americans actually fell in December – a month that typically sees a spike in job creation as employers add temporary positions to handle the holiday shopping season.

The number of employed African Americans fell from nearly 16 million to 15.8 million in December.

By contrast, the unemployment rate for Whites remained nearly a full point below the national average at 6.9 percent in December.

No votes yet

Blacks, African-Americans, whatever they would like to identify themselves as have been held back by Democrat policies for years now and have no realization that it's happening. The destruction of neighborhoods under HUD programs both here and in Detroit, the use of "the projects" to house the poor, and the government handouts that destroy any incentive to better oneself keep the minority population poor and undereducated.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

I think "white" and "black" are the most accurate descriptions. Not all Africans are black and historians make the case that we probably all originated from the area of the world that we now call "Africa."

I'm a strong believer that we have to take back the language from the liberals. They no longer can control the labels. It's "pro-abortion" and not "pro-choice," "UAW-made" and not "American-made," and "black" and not "African American."

You show respect by calling people what they want to be called, not whatever you decide is the term from a selected time period which you choose to recognize as the best description. And, with all the concern about the voting pattern of those whose roots are from south of our border, I'll bet you aren't even sure what to call them without being offensive.

You conservatives have your terms, too. It's anti- abortion, not "pro-life." It's millionaires, not "job creators." It's corporate welfare, not tax abatement.
See, Galt? Two can play at this game!

Okay, so Liberals know that EVERY black wants to be called "African American"? Your self-righteousness is only surpassed by your ignorance.

I NEVER stated that "EVERY black" wants anything! Those are YOUR WORDS!!
I reiterate. It is a sign of respect to call people what they want to be called.

Once again, it has been my experience that when some people feel as though they are losing an argument, they start name-calling.

OHH OHH I want to be a Klingon!

The media doesn't do that Dale. For instance a young man who works for me is Colombian. He is called Hispanic and Latino. He does not come from Latin America so he's technically not Latino and his his culture feels Hispanic is a put down because they fought off colonization by Spain.

The liberals have a tendency to celebrate diversity by ignoring how we are different. Black and white are just descriptors. There is no such thing as handicapable because I can do things they can't. PC change words so others can feign offense later. For instance there is a commercial about two teens being shown as bigoted because they call things "gay". When in reality the word gay didn't always mean homosexual so the gays are just mad that the younger generation is stealing the definition of a word they stole.


before you post something you believe to be a fact.
Latin America, as defined by Merriam-Webster: 1. Spanish America and Brazil 2. All of the Americas south of the United States. To be more specific, Latino: 1. A native or inhabitant of Latin America 2. A person of Latin American origin living in the United States.
In other words, someone Colombian is properly called a Latino.
Hispanic, also from Merriam-Webster: 1. Of or relating to the people, speech, and culture of Spain or of Spain and Portugal 2. Of, relating to, or being a person of Latin American descent living in the United States; especially one of Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto Rican origin.
Once again, your colleague from Colombia fits under this definition, and can properly be called Hispanic as well.

You are right. Definitions often change. However, the problem with the use of the word "gay" among younger Americans, is the context in which it is used. When most young people call something "gay", they are using the word to describe something which is bad, undesirable, or even evil. That is what most gay Americans object to. It's similar to the term "Jew you down" to Jews. Has gay ever had a different meaning? Of course. When I was very young, gay meant happy and carefree. Also, when I was very young, if you designated something as "cool" it meant the opposite of warm. Whether positive, negative, or neutral, words do claim different meanings in different eras.

It still comes back to respect. If one states, "I'm going to call different groups of people whatever I want to call them, or whatever I've always called them," one is simply not showing respect. You have a right to do this. Just don't be surprised if some people take offense.

Well which is it Dale, is it what a person want's to be called or is it what the dictionary wants them to be called. I can tell you based upon discussions with that young man he does not feel Colombia is a part of Latin America. I've heard this of people from DR, PR, and Cuba as well (yes, I've served with people actually from Cuba too.). If it's the dictionary definitions then you previous comment was wrong and it doesn't matter what the person wants and only what the dictionary dictates.

Your case about Gay/Jew would hold water if Jew meant something else before Jewish individuals defined themselves that way. I'd agree in the case of the word homo because it's used negatively and has never meant anything else besides an abbreviated version of homosexual just how jew is for jewish. However using the word gay negatively when it previously meant homosexual and then previously mean happy then it shows the word's meaning evolves and homosexuals should not be mad when a word evolves further just because they don't like what it evolved to.


you call your colleague what he wants to be called. I was only posting that the terms used are factually correct. AND they are not outdated, even though he may not like them. Apparently he and those of the other nationalities you mention don't like being lumped in with Mexicans. They have national pride, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The use of "gay" by young people IS PEJORATIVE, and is often used purposely in a pejorative way! And many of today's male homosexuals prefer the use of the word "gay" to describe them. That use is not outdated and using the term in a pejorative way hurts gay people.

Personally, I have no problem with being called a "Jew". It is, after all, short for Jewish, which I am. The term that most Jews find offensive, as do I, is "Jew you down." I occasionally heard this when I was in sales. It promotes a negative stereotype, in a very similar way to the use of "gay" as somehow being bad.

and heathens will never , ever, comprehend.

Black owned businesses, homes, and investments were the highest in American History, under President G.W. Bush.

Black owned businesses, homes, and investments have PLUMMETED the most in American History, under Ovomit-the Kenyan Royal Family Member or, is it a Royal Indonesian Family Member ?!

He's conflicted on the ancestry issue so, I am also.

Employers have the upper hand, as unemployment is very high. So they will naturally seek to remove from the workforce those elements considered unworthy.

I thought everything was supposed to be peachy for the poor under Obama.

Well, they're certainly becoming more numerous. That has to count for something.

2 MILLION out of poverty.

It caused 9.4 MILLION more to enter poverty.

The unintended consequences of wasting $6 TRILLION to buy votes from dissolute mooches.
And, 2013 will bring continued nightmares mostly for Ovomit voters.
Which, of course is apropos.

2 MILLION out of poverty.

It caused 9.4 MILLION more to enter poverty.

The unintended consequences of wasting $6 TRILLION to buy votes from dissolute mooches.
And, 2013 will bring continued nightmares mostly for Ovomit voters.
Which, of course is apropos.

also factors in play. As it rises employers will be forced to reduce their workforce. So the first to go will be those who the employer feels are not worthy of the higher wage. Usually this is the less educate and lacking any skill sets which provide a value to the employer. This will lead to even more unemployment and more dependency on the Government.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

to their liking.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the unemployment rate for white males had gone up last month, and the unemployment rate for women and minorities had gone down. Then one of you Obama-haters would have posted that the results were a direct payback for the votes he received which brought him victory. And the rest of you would have chimed in, some with more witty digs than others.

IMHO "trickle up" economics works better than "trickle down." The truth is, month-to-month figures mean little. You have to see a trend. It could be that Obama's policies are terrible and the economic apocalypse is inevitable. It could be that Obama's policies are more effective for the long-term and will create better conditions over time. All I know is that, while I watch my investment portfolio daily, I always make purchases for the long term. Most daily, even most monthly, changes don't mean much.
But enjoy yourselves, right-wingers. You have four more years to complain, poke fun, skewer, and pray for an economic collapse. HAVE FUN!!

I guess you liberals would be experts on this since you had 8 years of practice of hating Bush.

and me is, I literally prayed on January 20th both in 2001 and in 2009 that Bush #43 would be the best President the United States ever had. You prayed after both Obama elections for his abject failure, no matter what the human cost would be. I wanted to be wrong about Bush's policies. You want to be right about Obama's. You put political expediency ahead of the nation. I don't need to be right. I'd rather have the nation thrive.
Now, I can pray for both: my correctness, and the nation's good health!

What if "failure" leads to ultimate success?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the earth is flat. That has about as much possibility as blacks reducing their unemployment rate to the national average while Obama is president.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, Willard had won the 2012 election and reinforced the "trickle down" policies which got us into the Great Recession" to begin with. These policies worked so well between 2001 and 2009 under Bush #43! For the record, minority unemployment nearly doubled during that time.
"Trickle up" is MUCH better in the long run. We can compare the 8 years of Clinton and "trickle up" to the 8 years of Bush #43 and "trickle down."
Keep rooting for disaster, SP!!

How did trickle down cause the recession?

From my reading it was caused by a housing bubble. Housing bubbles are of no way caused by trickle down economics. We had a dotcom bubble which caused a recession just before Bush came into office. Did trickle down cause that as well?


During the Republican debates in 1980, Bush #41 stated that Ronald Reagan's plan to lower taxes, while concurrently increasing military spending significantly, would not grow the economy enough to lead to balanced budgets, but would, instead, lead to huge budget deficits. Bush #41 was the first to label Reagan's fiscal plan "Voodoo Economics."
Keep in mind that the Bush #43 era included fighting two simultaneous wars, at least one of which was justified by intelligence reports that were, at best, contradictory and questionable, and were later admitted to be fallacious. This added increased military spending to the Bush #43 tax cuts, almost directly mirroring the Reagan program 20 years earlier.
Since Reagan was elected, and his plan was put in place by Republicans and "Reagan Democrats" in Congress, it turned out that Bush #41 was right! The increased national debt caused an increased portion of the national budget needed to pay interest on the national debt. This translates into forces which create recessions. Younger people don't know, and older people tend to forget, but unemployment under Reagan peaked at 10.8% and stayed at or above 8% for 26 consecutive months! BTW -- in 1982, 1983, and again in 1984, Reagan asked for and received significant tax INCREASES, aimed primarily at working folks. Reagan's tax breaks primarily helped the rich. His tax hikes primarily hurt common folks. Over the 12 years of Reagan and Bush #41, who became the assistant voodoo master, the national debt more than QUADRUPLED!! While I never claim to be prescient, you may read my "Letter-to-the-Editor" that was published in The Blade on September 20, 1982, which refers to other letters I wrote during the Reagan era, predicting these huge deficits and admonishing President Reagan for raising taxes on lower income Americans.

I can't help but refer to Clinton's policies which conservatives confidently predicted would lead to disaster, but instead led us to a growing economy and budget SURPLUSES!! "TRICKLE UP" is far superior to "TRICKLE DOWN."
Both "trickle down" and "trickle up" spur the economy. That's basic Keynesian economics. If government spends more than it takes in, that additional money will be spent by those who receive it and spur business activity. However, giving money to those in the middle and lower income levels is better for long term economic growth, because middle and lower income people spend almost all of their money in local stores and for basic services, including rent or house payments.
We now have two recent, real-life test cases. The 8 years of Clinton vs. the 8 years of Bush #43. In real life, "trickle up" worked better than did "trickle down." It's not just a theory. It really happened!!

The biggest single problem from the Bush #43 era was the continuing deregulation of business, including the financial sector, and the decrease in the numbers of those in the Federal government who monitor the giant corporations. Bush #43 -- and other political leaders from both parties -- relied too much upon the veracity of business people, including the accounting firms which were supposed to be reporting out accurate data concerning these giant businesses and their finances. Business people are human. There is good and bad in every one of them. Some are better than others. Some are worse than others. Some lied. And the American people, the national budget, and the world economy all suffered greatly for this. As Thomas Jefferson stated 200 years ago, "I have never known a man's honesty to increase with his wealth."

No where in your response did you show where trickle down economics CAUSED the recession. Again in your original comment you said... "Willard had won the 2012 election and reinforced the "trickle down" policies which got us into the Great Recession" to begin with." so please show where it "got us" into a recession. Because what your statement is saying is that cutting taxes caused us to go into a recession since trickle down economics is the belief that limiting the ammount one gives to the government causes their discretionary spending to increase and thus aid the economy. For it to have caused the economy to recess it must have done the exact opposite.

AND, Clinton did not engage in Keysian economics. He actually cut taxes in 1997 which caused the economy to boom and he cut spending so there was no "trickle up" economics. Prior to the '97 tax cut the economy the economy grew at about 3%, post tax cut it grew at 4% what's exceptional about this is the jobs created from '93-'96 and '97-'00 are essentially the same, the boom came from an increase on household wealth at about 6%.


Cutting any taxes spurs the economy. Not enough of the cuts trickle down to help the economy in the long run using the "Trickle Down" cuts. When "Trickle Up" is used, everybody wins because businesses benefit when common folks spend more money. THAT'S what did the most to cause the Clinton boom and bring the Federal Budget into surplus! Clinton used changes in the tax code so that Federal income taxes would be assessed more equitably. Read some quotes from conservatives in 1993 and 1994 about Clinton's tax policies. They universally predicted abject failure.
You can't divorce "Trickle Down" from the other Reagan and Bush #43 policies, however. With the concurrent increases in defense spending, which happened both under Reagan and under Bush #43, budget deficits exploded, as happened under both Reagan and Bush #43, just as Bush #41 had predicted. That means that we have less government revenue available to help businesses create jobs and help out of work Americans train for needed jobs.
Willard proposed cutting taxes even further than the Bush #43 levels, and increasing the spending on defense. If you think the Obama deficits are large, what would this Voodoo Economics Redux have done? Along with this, Willard wanted to have LESS regulation of the giant corporations! The wisdom of foresight; the proper labeling of Reagan's fiscal folly as "Voodoo Economics;" was that of George H. W. Bush!

"THAT'S what did the most to cause the Clinton boom and bring the Federal Budget into surplus! Clinton used changes in the tax code so that Federal income taxes would be assessed more equitably." Already proved this wrong. Unless you can bring new facts in then it is just your opinion.

"That means that we have less government revenue available to help businesses create jobs and help out of work Americans train for needed jobs." Wrong. The government doesn't need revenue to create government jobs, the current administration has proven that. Plus the recession wasn't caused due to a lack of government jobs.

If you think the Obama deficits are large, what would this Voodoo Economics Redux have done? Along with this, Willard wanted to have LESS regulation of the giant corporations!" Again, it does not cause a recession nor get us out of one.

You stated that trickle down economics caused the recession yet you can't show it. Until you are ready to show it no further comment is needed.


I will agree to disagree.
Let's move on!

ever, fully comprehend the horrific nothingness in unionized public schools.
And thank God-for C.C.H.S., Notre Dame, and St. Francis.

Trickle up defies not only logic, history , and gravity-it's the most vapid financial statement a babbling fool can make.

Ever work for a poor man ?
Do banks lend to homeless people to start manufacturing facilities ?
Do lending institutions loan money to welfare rats ?
Do down and out Dims, create new products from eating their own snot ?
Toledo Public Schools-not only do not edify, they create indoctrinators with incomprehensible nonsense no one could believe , especially looking at their destruction of Toledo / Lucas County.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.