Barack leading us to socialism???

[newtothegame]

LMAO...as if we didn't already know!!!

British Columnist Stunned: Obama‘s SOTU Outlined Ideas ’Based on the Very Model That Is Causing the EU to Implode’

Janet Daley wrote a blistering column for The Daily Telegraph over the weekend entitled “Barack Obama is trying to make the US a more socialist state. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9045587/Barack-Obama-is-trying-to-make-the-US-a-more-socialist-state.html)” In the piece, Daley writes that the days of the world looking to the United States for leadership are over:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/british-columnist-stunned-obamas-sotu-outlined-ideas-based-on-the-very-model-that-is-causing-the-eu-to-implode/

[PaceAdvantage]

Bleh...they'll tell you that dude's opinion don't mean squat...'cause he's "right of center" :lol:

[BlueShoe]

Worse than that. The goal of Obama, one that he has had his entire adult life, is to destroy American society and then remake it in the image of the old Soviet Union. He truly believes that communism works. This is why those of us on the Right regard him with such hatred, along with his fellow travelers that share his goals, those that call themselves "Progressives".

[NJ Stinks]

Bleh...they'll tell you that dude's opinion don't mean squat...'cause he's "right of center" :lol:

The whole freakin' newspaper is right of center.

Anyway, the article is total rubbish designed to leave the impression that it's un-American and unhealthy for a country to tax the wealthy at higher rates.

Apparently because you never know when the wealthy are not going to feel like hiring you. :rolleyes:

[DJofSD]

Hey, stinky. Given the chance, wouldn't you rather have a lot of money?

[NJ Stinks]

Hey, stinky. Given the chance, wouldn't you rather have a lot of money?

Of course. Then I too can decide the fate of the serfs! :jump:

[johnhannibalsmith]

Of course. Then I too can decide the fate of the serfs! :jump:

Well then... your sarcastic response aside, of course you would... The problem is that increasing the middle class by dragging others from the higher class down in to it generally does little to nothing to help those in the lower classes from moving up in to it.

The middlemen still can't figure out how to turn the successes of others into successes for the unsuccessful... and they aren't about to put themselves out of business by ever figuring it out.

Making unsuccesfulness somewhat tolerable and painless may be noble in one sense, but it certainly doesn't solve the problem of how to make more people successful. Of course, it would be borderline political and professional suicide for the middlemen to unlock a secret to convince people that they are their own masters and control their own fate.

[Tom]

The problem is that increasing the middle class by dragging others from the higher class down in to it generally does little to nothing to help those in the lower classes from moving up in to it.


Excellent point!
You bring people UP into it through jobs, opportunity, investments...everything the left is trying to penalize everyone for.
The left want to shrink the pie so that everyone fits, bring everyone DOWN.

And they have a whole bunch of super-rich folks telling them how to do it. :bang:

[NJ Stinks]

Well then... your sarcastic response aside, of course you would... The problem is that increasing the middle class by dragging others from the higher class down in to it generally does little to nothing to help those in the lower classes from moving up in to it.



It's the "dragging others from the higher class down in to it" part that I don't buy. The highest income tax rate on earned income was 50% and the highest income tax rate on unearned income was 70% for many years (before 1981) in this country. I don't remember reading about an epidemic due to the wealthy being dragged down at the time.

The whole premise strikes me as political BS aimed at protecting unaffordable maximum income tax rates.

[DJofSD]

It's the "dragging others from the higher class down in to it" part that I don't buy. The highest income tax rate on earned income was 50% and the highest income tax rate on unearned income was 70% for many years (before 1981) in this country. I don't remember reading about an epidemic due to the wealthy being dragged down at the time.

The whole premise strikes me as political BS aimed at protecting unaffordable maximum income tax rates.
A different era, different economies and a different mind set.

Don't worry, sticky, the BRIC countries, especially China, continue to eat our lunch. The USA is struggling just to hold onto 3rd place for a lot of different metrics where we used to be on top. We are living the slow decline that befell Great Britian not that long ago.

[johnhannibalsmith]

It's the "dragging others from the higher class down in to it" part that I don't buy. The highest income tax rate on earned income was 50% and the highest income tax rate on unearned income was 70% for many years (before 1981) in this country. I don't remember reading about an epidemic due to the wealthy being dragged down at the time.

The whole premise strikes me as political BS aimed at protecting unaffordable maximum income tax rates.

Well it isn't meant terribly literally. The point is that resolving income inequality is usually an exercise in dreaming up new ways to punish the wealthy, the successful, under the pretense that it helps those on the other end of the spectrum. Sure you can lower the disparity that way, but you want to do it the exact opposite way - by bringing the bottom up - and I have yet to see much evidence after however many number of decades that taking from the top is helping the bottom get closer to the top.

Let me ask you a question before I go spend my last few bucks on cigarettes, soda, and mutuel tickets - who do you think, practically speaking, has a better chance of lifting someone from where they are to where they would like to be? The government middlemen or the people that the middlemen take from?

[JustRalph]

It's the "dragging others from the higher class down in to it" part that I don't buy. The highest income tax rate on earned income was 50% and the highest income tax rate on unearned income was 70% for many years (before 1981) in this country. I don't remember reading about an epidemic due to the wealthy being dragged down at the time.

The whole premise strikes me as political BS aimed at protecting unaffordable maximum income tax rates.

yep, and something strange happened in the late 80's. It barreled into the 90's thanks to Bill Gates and others. It was called a "boom" I know, Bill Clinton was responsible for it, right?

Coincidence?

[NJ Stinks]

Well it isn't meant terribly literally. The point is that resolving income inequality is usually an exercise in dreaming up new ways to punish the wealthy, the successful, under the pretense that it helps those on the other end of the spectrum. Sure you can lower the disparity that way, but you want to do it the exact opposite way - by bringing the bottom up - and I have yet to see much evidence after however many number of decades that taking from the top is helping the bottom get closer to the top.

Let me ask you a question before I go spend my last few bucks on cigarettes, soda, and mutuel tickets - who do you think, practically speaking, has a better chance of lifting someone from where they are to where they would like to be? The government middlemen or the people that the middlemen take from?

Government programs like the GI Bill and Pell Grants help lift people to a better economic future. These programs need to be financed by tax revenue.

[acorn54]

if i remember my history right,after world war 2 the soldiers came home and were offered by the government to go to school to help them make good lives for themselves

[NJ Stinks]

yep, and something strange happened in the late 80's. It barreled into the 90's thanks to Bill Gates and others. It was called a "boom" I know, Bill Clinton was responsible for it, right?

Coincidence?

When the economy is doing well and the country is running a budget surplus during boom times, lowering tax rates is more than fair.

On the other hand, starting a war (with Iraq) and lowering taxes at the same time is lunacy.

[badcompany]

A different era, different economies and a different mind set.

Don't worry, sticky, the BRIC countries, especially China, continue to eat our lunch. The USA is struggling just to hold onto 3rd place for a lot of different metrics where we used to be on top. We are living the slow decline that befell Great Britian not that long ago.

The left refuses to acknowledge the negative correlation between government size and economic growth.

So, when government grows and the economy is affected adversely, the left blames the stagnation on the private sector and calls for more government.

This vicious cycle usually ends with bread lines.

[boxcar]

The whole freakin' newspaper is right of center.

Anyway, the article is total rubbish designed to leave the impression that it's un-American and unhealthy for a country to tax the wealthy at higher rates.

Apparently because you never know when the wealthy are not going to feel like hiring you. :rolleyes:

Are wealthy business owners obligated to hire you or or anyone else?

But you're right, it is UN-AMERICAN and UNHEALTHY to tax, tax and tax. You do know that one of the main planks of Marxism is a heavy, progressive income tax, right? But you probably think that's a mere coincidence to what libs want to do in this country, eh? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Well then... your sarcastic response aside, of course you would... The problem is that increasing the middle class by dragging others from the higher class down in to it generally does little to nothing to help those in the lower classes from moving up in to it.

The middlemen still can't figure out how to turn the successes of others into successes for the unsuccessful... and they aren't about to put themselves out of business by ever figuring it out.

Making unsuccesfulness somewhat tolerable and painless may be noble in one sense, but it certainly doesn't solve the problem of how to make more people successful. Of course, it would be borderline political and professional suicide for the middlemen to unlock a secret to convince people that they are their own masters and control their own fate.

This is what I have always said but differently. Socialism is nothing less than
Trickle Down Poverty. All Socialism does is help spread the Pain and Misery, which naturally affects the "middle class" first. It does nothing to improve people's lives, most especially those at the bottom income level, as you have said.

Boxcar

[jognlope]

You mean by passing legislation to make better access to minorities and women to get SBA loans, or passing legislation to make federal student loans affordable, payments at 5-10% of monthly income, starting probably 2014, or his bill proposed to give Pell grants to technical school students, or his tax breaks for companies who hire veterans or unemployed, or the partnering of companies with technical schools to set up apprentice programs so that they can hire local. Or the $500 billion cut in Medicare with health care bill, which itself is not perfect but a healthy nation is a prosperous nation. Oh Obama didn't invent medicare, that's right. Or social security, yeh he didn't invent that either.

[NJ Stinks]

A different era, different economies and a different mind set.

Don't worry, sticky, the BRIC countries, especially China, continue to eat our lunch. The USA is struggling just to hold onto 3rd place for a lot of different metrics where we used to be on top. We are living the slow decline that befell Great Britian not that long ago.

I missed your post, DJ.

First off, Sticky sounds worse than Stinky! :mad: :)

Secondly, is it possible that our dependence on BRIC countries for loans and goods is wrapped around the ridiculously low U.S. tax rates, our reluctance to slap tariffs on imports, and our lack of desire to penalize U.S. companies that outsource jobs overseas?

I don't buy the idea (stated in this article) that our "slow decline" is due primarily to social programs that we can't afford. It's an excuse for sustaining the status quo IMO.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Government programs like the GI Bill and Pell Grants help lift people to a better economic future. These programs need to be financed by tax revenue.

Of course there are taxpayer subsidized programs that can be catalysts for the means, but who ultimately provides the ends? Who truly provides the incentive? When we think about desirable lifestyles and outcomes, to whom do we draw comparisons that define what is emulated? Who ultimately provides the tangible opportunity for those outcomes?

Government, unfortunately, has evolved into providing "the ends" as a consequence of expanding their role beyond being catalyst for the means. That outcome, the one provided by government, is ultimately an oppressive one in the quest to utilize the means to actually get to what most would consider a desirable outcome. When you turn to government to provide a baseline for all of life's essentials, more people may in fact progress UP to that baseline - but many more never progress beyond that baseline, people that otherwise likely would have done so.

[Tom]

but a healthy nation is a prosperous nation. \


Oh really?
I thought employed people made a nation prosperous.

[BlueShoe]

You do know that one of the main planks of Marxism is a heavy, progressive income tax, right? But you probably think that's a mere coincidence to what libs want to do in this country, eh?

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."

"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency."

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

[badcompany]

I missed your post, DJ.

First off, Sticky sounds worse than Stinky! :mad: :)

Secondly, is it possible that our dependence on BRIC countries for loans and goods is wrapped around the ridiculously low U.S. tax rates, our reluctance to slap tariffs on imports, and our lack of desire to penalize U.S. companies that outsource jobs overseas?

I don't buy the idea (stated in this article) that our "slow decline" is due primarily to social programs that we can't afford. It's an excuse for sustaining the status quo IMO.

LOL, taxes are so ridiculously low that the fed gov't takes in each year the entire gdp of Italy and England.

People living beyond their means is a result of low taxes? If you can afford to bet $20 a race but you bet $50, whose fault is that? Maybe we should subidize horseplayers?

Tariffs are a subsidy to inefficient American companies at the expense of the American consumer who has to pay higher prices which lower real wages. Who is affected most by this? The little guy who you supposedly care so much about.

[Dave Schwartz]

Remember that commercial against gun control that says something like, "If it is a crime to own a gun, only criminals will have guns?"

Well, if you apply that to socialism, it would be like: "If we re-distribute the money, only the wealthy will have money."

I mean, really, folks. Does anyone actually believe that the people in power will ever allow their money to be taken away?

[Tom]

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin


mmm, mmm, mmm!

[badcompany]

"The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation."

"The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency."

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

It's no coincidence that libs/leftists are always for the types of products and services that aren't profitable in the private sector, and are against those that are profitable.

[BlueShoe]

It's no coincidence that libs/leftists are always for the types of products and services that aren't profitable in the private sector, and are against those that are profitable.
A perfect example of which is Walmart, one of the great success stories of American business. Have yet to know a lib that is not anti Wallymart. There is just something about making a profit while selling at low prices that leftists just cannot grasp and accept.

[DJofSD]

mmm, mmm, mmm!
:lol: :lol:

[Ocala Mike]

This could have gone in the "Political Quotes" thread, but it fits here:

“Under capitalism, man exploits man; while under socialism just the reverse is true.”
- John Kenneth Galbraith


Ocala Mike

[Robert Goren]

A perfect example of which is Walmart, one of the great success stories of American business. Have yet to know a lib that is not anti Wallymart. There is just something about making a profit while selling at low prices that leftists just cannot grasp and accept. I shop at Walmart all the time. I don't know of many people who don't. You have to be a rich republican like Romney not to shop there. The first time Walmart want to build in here in Lincoln in 1987, it was denied a Zoning change on straight party line vote 4 Republicans against the change 3 democrats for it. 3 years later the same republicans vote on the same zoning change on the same piece of property to allow a Kuhl's. The reason the republicans gave for their change of heart was that Kuhl's would not have the same traffic problems. Well, they're right about that.

[rastajenk]

I'm a poor Republican, and I don't shop there.

[acorn54]

well the way it is now with the 10 year treasury note giving 1.6 percent senior citizens life savings are taking a whacking.
and people nearing 65 and were planning to retire can't on that kind of return. they will work until they die, this is the american way of life now.

[Tom]

Zoning, Bobby?
What has that got to do with Barack and the FEDs???

How's your dog-catcher doing these days?

[bigmack]

I shop at Walmart all the time. I don't know of many people who don't. You have to be a rich republican like Romney not to shop there.
What we got here is a post that may very well go down as the "#1 Ignoramus Post of 2012." Keep your fingers crossed, you may be a wiener.

[JustRalph]

You mean by passing legislation to make better access to minorities and women to get SBA loans, or passing legislation to make federal student loans affordable, payments at 5-10% of monthly income, starting probably 2014, or his bill proposed to give Pell grants to technical school students, or his tax breaks for companies who hire veterans or unemployed, or the partnering of companies with technical schools to set up apprentice programs so that they can hire local. Or the $500 billion cut in Medicare with health care bill, which itself is not perfect but a healthy nation is a prosperous nation. Oh Obama didn't invent medicare, that's right. Or social security, yeh he didn't invent that either.

Government has no business acting in these areas. When they do this, they pick winners and losers. It's not the role of government to pick winners or losers.

[NJ Stinks]

Government has no business acting in these areas. When they do this, they pick winners and losers. It's not the role of government to pick winners or losers.

Who are the losers when it comes to Medicare - and Social Security for that matter?

Anyway, I disagree with you.

[JustRalph]

Who are the losers when it comes to Medicare - and Social Security for that matter?

Anyway, I disagree with you.

I am primarily speaking to the first half of the quote.

[Robert Goren]

Zoning, Bobby?
What has that got to do with Barack and the FEDs???

How's your dog-catcher doing these days?It has to do with post which stated that liberals are anti Walmart. I pointed out that it is not case here and I pointed out in fact the opposite is true. Sorry if replying to a post in error doesn't fit in with your anti Obama rants.

[Robert Goren]

What we got here is a post that may very well go down as the "#1 Ignoramus Post of 2012." Keep your fingers crossed, you may be a wiener.So pointing out that this liberal is not anti Walmart makes me an ignoramus, Huh? As usual you haven't a clue about politics and/or economics.

[newtothegame]

It has to do with post which stated that liberals are anti Walmart. I pointed out that it is not case here and I pointed out in fact the opposite is true. Sorry if replying to a post in error doesn't fit in with your anti Obama rants.
Good so you agree with the wages, and the supposed terrible working conditions that wal-mart provides? I mean c'mon there sluethy, you know you libs come and rail here all the time about pay, fair share, etc etc....
Good to see you have had a change of heart versus the standard liberal mantra....:lol:

[bigmack]

So pointing out that this liberal is not anti Walmart makes me an ignoramus, Huh? As usual you haven't a clue about politics and/or economics.
Sure, Bud. Point is, THIS is the subject of your ignorance.

You have to be a rich republican like Romney not to shop there.


u1rTSazpCJs

[NJ Stinks]

Of course there are taxpayer subsidized programs that can be catalysts for the means, but who ultimately provides the ends? Who truly provides the incentive? When we think about desirable lifestyles and outcomes, to whom do we draw comparisons that define what is emulated? Who ultimately provides the tangible opportunity for those outcomes?

Government, unfortunately, has evolved into providing "the ends" as a consequence of expanding their role beyond being catalyst for the means. That outcome, the one provided by government, is ultimately an oppressive one in the quest to utilize the means to actually get to what most would consider a desirable outcome. When you turn to government to provide a baseline for all of life's essentials, more people may in fact progress UP to that baseline - but many more never progress beyond that baseline, people that otherwise likely would have done so.

There is a certain amount of truth to what you are saying above. I don't deny it. But then you say things like:

"Sure you can lower the disparity that way, but you want to do it the exact opposite way - by bringing the bottom up - and I have yet to see much evidence after however many number of decades that taking from the top is helping the bottom get closer to the top." (#11 in this thread.)

How can you deny the positive effects of Affirmative Action on blacks, women, and other minorities? Do we still need Affirmative Action? I don't know. I imagine women and other minorities know better than me if we do.

I guess my problem with the beliefs you expressed here is that you don't appear to believe the federal government can make things better for Americans in a meaningful way without making those Americans dependent on the government trough. I simply don't believe that is generally true. In some cases yes - in most cases no.

[TJDave]

WARNING!!!

You WILL NOT be able to get this tune out of your head.

Don't come back later and say I didn't warn you.



rNzwgrtdBo8

[johnhannibalsmith]

...How can you deny the positive effects of Affirmative Action on blacks, women, and other minorities? Do we still need Affirmative Action?...

I'm not a big fan of Affirmative Action. I was at one time. Well, not a big fan, but I saw at as a responsible answer to centuries of, let's face it, being handicapped by society.

Over the years as the debate has waxed and waned, I always found myself confused and underqualified to really have much of an opinion anymore. At some point almost ten years ago, I stumbled on this analysis by Thomas Sowell.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/8108

Before you say "Hey wait!!!" - he's a conservative/libertarian type. He's also a self-described reformed liberal. We share some similarities and I enjoy his views on almost everything although I don't always share his beliefs on certain things. Oh yeah, he's black. As in African-American.

Shortly after the New Haven Firefighter controversy, he penned this gem that exposes what, in his opinon, are the practical fallacies of quotas:

http://www.creators.com/opinion/thomas-sowell/a-tangled-web.html


These are a couple of his other shorter "opinion articles" on the subject.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060899.asp

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/culture/diversity/2637-the-grand-fraud-affirmative-action-for-blacks.html

I searched a bit for one that he did on Affirmative Action policies in the broader sense, more in the workplace than in the education system. I couldn't find it - and by the first paragraph of article number one - you probably had more than enough of Mr. Sowell anyway.

My point is that no matter how much I read or saw or listened to about the subject, nobody offered a perspective that appealled to me as much as Sowell's. As a black conservative-type with a regular article that appears in the Jewish World Review - and a style that comes right at you - he's someone who's opinion I find more difficult to dismiss than others simply as "political".

So, in many ways, my answer to your question is better answered by Mr. Sowell because he's smarter than I am and I like the way he answers the question.

But... I won't argue with anyone that says that Affirmative Action has had positive results. Whether it is successful or a failure as policy... hmmmm... has it produced positive results... yes, I believe it would be irresponsible to deny the existence of positives, particularly at its inception - but I would say it is also irrefutable that it yielded plenty of negatives and in some ways was an artificial impediment to legitimately positive perceptions of races by other races.

In summary, I'd like to note... I still have some trouble even understanding why you jumped to affirmative action as an answer to the portion you cited - about dragging the top down to give the illusion of a narrowing of the gap rather than bringing up the bottom... I think if that is the best example of government producing desirable outcomes - mandating success based upon physical attributes/genetics/heritage and creating failures in others for the same reason, well... I don't know... I'd hope we could do better than that, or maybe it reaffirms my opinion... nonetheless without carrying on any more, I attempt to offer you the best answer that I can to your question as I'm not really sure there is a definitive answer, just more appealing perspectives and opinions.

[jognlope]

The govt. picks, backs, licks the ass of and courts "winners", the rich, every minute of the day, every day of the week when it passes laws to the benefits of these winners, ie Koch Brothers. And yes our govt.'s job is in part to help the losers who have been traditionally shut out.

[DJofSD]

Yes, but, the government ends up making more and more people losers.

And then they keep redefining what groups are losers. Pretty soon, every one is a loser.

Kind of a self perpetuating situation, don't you think?

[Tom]

Don't forget GE, and Warren Buffet, and Solyndro.....

[Jeff P]

When the economy is doing well and the country is running a budget surplus during boom times, lowering tax rates is more than fair.

On the other hand, starting a war (with Iraq) and lowering taxes at the same time is lunacy.

Here's what I see:

Under Obama our federal government has grown progressively worse. It is actively engaged in self expansion while operating at the largest deficit levels in recorded history. It is wasting tax money collected on countless programs so ill thought out that it's not that much of a stretch for anybody with a high school education to realize we could probably achieve the same result in creating jobs and stimulating the economy if we skipped the whole government thing and began burning tax money as soon as it is collected (and sprinkled the ashes in a field somewhere.)

Under these circumstances ANY tax increase is unconscionable.


-jp

.

[DJofSD]

Raising taxes is tantamount to rewarding failure.

See my tag line.

[Tom]

How else would Obama funnel money to all his supporters, unions, etc?
The stimulus was his payback vehicle.

[JustRalph]

And yes our govt.'s job is in part to help the losers who have been traditionally shut out.

You reveal who you are........another true believer in the nanny state

I challenge you to find the above in the constitution

[DJofSD]

You reveal who you are........another true believer in the nanny state

I challenge you to find the above in the constitution
Now, now, JR. You know the word 'welfare' is in there.

[Jeff P]

Actually the word "welfare" does appear in both the Preamble and in Article I Section 8 of The Constitution itself.

Preamble to the United States Constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

However, I highly doubt the Founding Fathers of our country had any intention of creating a nanny state.

Madison on the "General Welfare" of America: His Consistent Constitutional Vision:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-11.html

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution confers upon Congress certain enumerated powers and a potentially more sweeping authority to provide for the general welfare, a goal also set forth in the Preamble. For proponents of a limited central government, the General Welfare Clause has been a source of great mischief. Interpreted elastically by constitutionalists of the "living document" persuasion, the Clause has helped serve up a gourmand’s feast of government programs, regulations, and intrusions that would have been unimaginable to the Framers.

-jp

.

[DJofSD]

OK, Jeff, OK. I was trying to be funny. I guess I needed an emoticon or two.

[Jeff P]

DJ,

I kind of knew you were joking. (No emoticon needed.)

I'm on edge today and it has nothing to do with you. I've been looking long and hard for some candidate somewhere whose actions and voting record would indicate he or she understands and believes in the simple concepts expressed so eloquently by the Preamble to the Constitution. Specifically I am looking at the words "We the People" and examining the voting records of elected officials at every level (federal, state, local) in light of those words.

Needless to say, doing this is depressing. It has me thinking how horrified this country's Founding Fathers would be if they could somehow be here today to see what government in this country has become (under our generation's watch.).

Frankly, it has me horrified too.


-jp

.

[DJofSD]

Jeff,

I have a son that is in 6th grade. I really am concerned about his future. It scares the crap out of me. So, I really do appreciate your remarks.

[boxcar]

Jeff,

I have a son that is in 6th grade. I really am concerned about his future. It scares the crap out of me. So, I really do appreciate your remarks.

I know a lot of people like you -- who literally fear for their kids. When we've reached the place where we are fearing for ourselves or our children, then we know we are dealing with a wicked, tyrannical government.

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Over the years as the debate has waxed and waned, I always found myself confused and underqualified to really have much of an opinion anymore. At some point almost ten years ago, I stumbled on this analysis by Thomas Sowell.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/8108


I searched a bit for one that he did on Affirmative Action policies in the broader sense, more in the workplace than in the education system. I couldn't find it - and by the first paragraph of article number one - you probably had more than enough of Mr. Sowell anyway.

My point is that no matter how much I read or saw or listened to about the subject, nobody offered a perspective that appealled to me as much as Sowell's. As a black conservative-type with a regular article that appears in the Jewish World Review - and a style that comes right at you - he's someone who's opinion I find more difficult to dismiss than others simply as "political".



Having had a little wine after playing golf today, reading Sowell tonight was probably not a good idea. I got through about half the first article in the link above. There is a sentence in there that stunned me. Mainly because I don't believe it. Here it is:

The empirical evidence is clear that most blacks got themselves out of poverty in the decades preceding the civil rights revolution of the 1960s and the beginning of affirmative action in the 1970s.

Somebody needs to show me this "empirical evidence".

[bigmack]

The empirical evidence is clear that most blacks got themselves out of poverty in the decades preceding the civil rights revolution of the 1960s and the beginning of affirmative action in the 1970s.

Somebody needs to show me this "empirical evidence".
I'm thinkin' you have more of a problem with 'most' than empirical evidence. Who can dispute ee - Don't tell me you can?

And don't tell me you can golf under 100. :eek: