In response to:

Obama--The Black Man's Burden

CarolinaSistah Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 2:32 PM
Thank you for the comparison of Black unemployment in 2010 to present Black unemployment. Something is definitely improving, but is it something President Obama is doing? If so, what is it?
nhurston Wrote: Jul 17, 2012 12:01 PM
Republicans didn't have a problem with deficit in the past. Here's an article on subject from the well-known "liberal" rag, Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

The only argument you have against Obama's deficit spending is one of scale. If you would like to discuss how the stimulus was handled, I can certainly acknowledge that I am angered by the way that the most tangible benefits of the stimulus went to the 1% (http://townhall.com/columnists/austinhill/2011/07/17/who_benefits_from_all_the_obama_spending_sprees/page/2). I'm very angry about that, but I don't see that McCain would (a) have not engaged in stimulus spending, or (b) that the results change
Snarkasterous1 Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 7:33 PM
I, for one, am perfectly willing to assign Obozo full "credit" for racking up three straight years of deficits of ~$1.3 TRILLION.

This, to thinking adults, is a frighteningly absurd rate of spending. It is, of course, utterly unsustainable....and that's true despite fantasist libbie Keynesians that, along with unicorns, expect that mountain of debt to be "paid down" during boom times. Of course, ever since the start of libbie-driven entitlement state, this has never happened to any meaningful degree. The debt ratchet turns in one direction. Unfortunately for us all, Obozo has applied a power tool to that ratchet.

-Snark
nhurston Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 4:10 PM
This is from 2010, you dolt.
Reading. It is fundamental.

2012 is better for them now, as stated by Lurita above.

Do you need better glasses? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it's just a physical inability to see the words correctly.
nhurston Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 4:09 PM
Second, please tell me which executive orders trouble you, and then make sure you discuss how those orders relate to ones signed by past presidents.
nhurston Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 4:08 PM
And you have never read or understood any of these Executive Orders, nor do you have any historical knowledge of these orders. First, you are DEAD WRONG that Obama has signed 228 EO's. He has signed 130 (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html). Want to know how many Reagan signed during his first term? 211 (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/reagan.html)
MG formerly minnesotagrandma Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 3:55 PM
"According to the Economic Policy Institute report, the unemployment rate for blacks is projected to reach a not-seasonally adjusted rate of 17.2 percent in the third quarter of this year, up from 15.5 percent during the same period last year."

IMPROVING? This is from nhurstons own source.
Ann272 Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 3:10 PM
The only problem with the above statement "Congress ultimately drafts the policies, and the president only signs them." is incorrect. This apologist doesn't recognize that Obama is ruling by Executive Orders (228 so far) and executive privilege. Congress has had no say, nor have the American people.
nhurston Wrote: Jul 16, 2012 2:42 PM
Your question underscores what really should be asked - whether any President should be held directly responsible for unemployment rates. The argument for the affirmative would be that the President sets policies for Congress to enact. The alternative is that he should not be held directly responsible because Congress ultimately drafts the policies, and the President only signs them. There is a lot of grey shading in all of that.

If one wanted to assign some credit to Obama, it should likely be from his push for deficit spending to support state and local programs, and to try to rebuild infrastructure. That's just one idea, and there are many to choose from. What do you think?

Barack Obama was a no-show at the recent 103rd NAACP conference, but, clearly, he is being given a pass by the NAACP leadership. Checking the president's schedule, apparently there was nothing so pressing that he should have been unable to attend the meeting in Texas, but instead, he relegated responsibilities of the annual NAACP meeting to the vice president.

If Barack Obama cannot attend the annual NAACP meeting, in an election year, on a day when he has no other pressing duties, when he has the opportunity to address almost 10,000 attendees, then how can it be a...