PDA

View Full Version : Socialist governments "always run out of other people's money."



JAD_333
04 Jun 10,, 02:55
What is government's principal role? In the article that follows George Will takes cues from author William Voegeli's new book, "Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State."

The book contends that Wilsonian progressivism was a blatant repudiation of the limited government envisioned by the founders in the Constitution. And since that repudiation, government and especially the Supreme Court has gone on to evolve the American Dream into a right as opposed to a pursuit, as the founders envisioned.

The problem with elevating every need into a right is that it begets more and more social programs, the cost of which must be borne by working people. somehow.

It's an old problem. Thomas Jefferson worried that unlimited government would eventually take the fruits of people's labor to give it to those who don't labor. He wrote: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Too many people today seem unable to sense the threat to our country from the weight of these social programs. Their over-zealous desire to help people blinds them. To paraphrase an old saying, "the road to ruin is paved with good intentions."

Are we better off as a social welfare nation, which we are becoming and which results from unlimited government, or would we better off with the limited government envisioned in the Constitution?

More importantly can we stop progressivism, or is it too late?



The danger of a government with unlimited power

George Will
June 3, 2010

Today, as it has been for a century, American politics is an argument between two Princetonians -- James Madison, Class of 1771, and Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879. Madison was the most profound thinker among the Founders. Wilson, avatar of "progressivism," was the first president critical of the nation's founding. Barack Obama's Wilsonian agenda reflects its namesake's rejection of limited government.

Lack of "a limiting principle" is the essence of progressivism, according to William Voegeli, contributing editor of the Claremont Review of Books, in his new book "Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State." The Founders, he writes, believed that free government's purpose, and the threats to it, are found in nature. The threats are desires for untrammeled power, desires which, Madison said, are "sown in the nature of man." Government's limited purpose is to protect the exercise of natural rights that pre-exist government, rights that human reason can ascertain in unchanging principles of conduct and that are essential to the pursuit of happiness.

Wilsonian progressives believe that History is a proper noun, an autonomous thing. It, rather than nature, defines government's ever-evolving and unlimited purposes. Government exists to dispense an ever-expanding menu of rights -- entitlements that serve an open-ended understanding of material and even spiritual well-being.

The name "progressivism" implies criticism of the Founding, which we leave behind as we make progress. And the name is tautological: History is progressive because progress is defined as whatever History produces. History guarantees what the Supreme Court has called "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
ad_icon

The cheerful assumption is that "evolving" must mean "improving." Progressivism's promise is a program for every problem, and progressivism's premise is that every unfulfilled desire is a problem.

Franklin Roosevelt, an alumnus of Wilson's administration, resolved to "resume" Wilson's "march along the path of real progress" by giving government "the vibrant personal character that is the very embodiment of human charity." He repudiated the Founders' idea that government is instituted to protect pre-existing and timeless natural rights, promising "the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order."

He promised "a right to make a comfortable living." Presumably, the judiciary would define and enforce the delivery of comfort. Specifically, there could be no right to "do anything which deprives others" of whatever "elemental rights" the government decides to dispense.

Today, government finds the limitless power of dispensing not in Madison's Constitution of limited government but in Wilson's theory that the Constitution actually frees government from limitations. The liberating -- for government -- idea is that the Constitution is a "living," evolving document. Wilson's Constitution is an emancipation proclamation for government, empowering it to regulate all human activities in order to treat all human desires as needs and hence as rights. Unlimited power is entailed by what Voegeli calls government's "right to discover new rights."

"Liberalism's protean understanding of rights," he says, "complicates and ultimately dooms the idea of a principled refusal to elevate any benefit that we would like people to enjoy to the status of an inviolable right." Needs breed rights to have the needs addressed, to the point that Lyndon Johnson, an FDR protege, promised that government would provide Americans with "purpose" and "meaning."

Although progressivism's ever-lengthening list of rights is as limitless as human needs/desires, one right that never makes the list is the right to keep some inviolable portion of one's private wealth or income, "regardless," Voegeli says, "of the lofty purposes social reformers wish to make of it."

Lacking a limiting principle, progressivism cannot say how big the welfare state should be but must always say that it should be bigger than it currently is. Furthermore, by making a welfare state a fountain of rights requisite for democracy, progressives in effect declare that democratic deliberation about the legitimacy of the welfare state is illegitimate.

"By blackening the skies with crisscrossing dollars," Voegeli says, the welfare state encourages people "to believe an impossibility: that every household can be a net importer of the wealth redistributed by the government." But the welfare state's problem, today becoming vivid, is socialism's problem, as Margaret Thatcher defined it: Socialist governments "always run out of other people's money."

Wilsonian government, meaning (in Wilson's words) government with "unstinted power," is hostile to Madison's Constitution, which, Madison said, obliges government "to control itself." Thus our choice is between government restraint rooted in respect for nature, or government free to follow History wherever government says History marches.

georgewill@washpost.com

astralis
04 Jun 10,, 03:23
JAD,

i'd say that this is george will trying to sound like david brooks, only he can't pull it off.

this statement that liberals "lack a limiting principle" is something keith once said here; it's a nice way of saying that inevitably the liberal, no matter how moderate, will end up with a stalinist society.

the implication, of course, that conservatives are by definition always moderate.

i wonder how will would square the Third Way/New Democrats with this thinking?

highsea
04 Jun 10,, 03:55
The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

I suppose whether or not someone thinks this is a good or bad thing depends on the value they place on individual liberty. We have certainly gone off the path the founders envisioned, you can't even see it from here.

The land of opportunity has become the land of opportunists.

gunnut
04 Jun 10,, 17:49
Nonsense...that just means the government needs to find new and creative ways to extract money from people who work.

highsea
04 Jun 10,, 18:01
^^^ They've already figured that out. They take it from people who aren't born yet. :mad:

JAD_333
05 Jun 10,, 05:29
i'd say that this is george will trying to sound like david brooks, only he can't pull it off.

Well, asty, if he could pull it off, where would that leave us?


this statement that liberals "lack a limiting principle" is something keith once said here;

So, if Keith said it, it's wrong. :eek:


it's a nice way of saying that inevitably the liberal, no matter how moderate, will end up with a stalinist society.

That's scaremongering stuff. Give me credit for little intelligence.:( Whether liberalism leads to a police state ruled by a paranoid sadist is another question. Anyway I don't believe it does. But the topic I meant to pursue is the viability of "unlimited government" as it pertains to social tinkering.

You use the term "liberal moderate", which to me is a liberal who is to embarrassed to march with Code Pink. I prefer the term Progressivism because it implies ceaseless movement.

Progressives believe government is responsible for the welfare of the people. To succeed they need "unlimited government", insofar as the passage of welfare programs is concerned. Their agenda has been helped by a series of Supreme Court decisions roughly translated as "the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned how bad social conditions in the US would become, and surely would not have prevented government from remedying them."

Of course, this is BS. The founders were quite clear that they were establishing a "limited government" and wanted it to stay that way. Hell, they had just rebelled against an "unlimited government" and knew firsthand
the dangers of one, especially to individual freedoms. By "limited" they meant a government that limits itself to the roles spelled out in the Constitution--period.

Today we can see the results of both the "limited government" they created and the "unlimited government" the courts have created. We can judge them by their fruits.

Today, our "unlimited government" can pass any social programs it deems good for the people, and there is no end in sight of its creativity. The cost is heavy and growing heavier. If it keeps passing more and more social programs, inevitably it will overtax the economy.

OTOH "limited government" does not seek to redress socio-economic imbalances. It does not create monetary entitlements; it does not define poverty so as to make war on it; it does not take from one citizen to give to another. It simply protects the right of each individual to pursue his life and happiness. This "limited government" benefited the US well for its first 125 years.

So, the question is, which is our best course? Is there a middle ground? Will progressivism lead to the ruin of the nation or a long period of economic pain? Is the other too insensitive and cruel to those in poverty and need?

Miller time. :))

highsea
05 Jun 10,, 20:32
...So, the question is, which is our best course? Is there a middle ground?You can search for a middle ground, but you will never find it.

I used to think it was possible, but no more. Any compromise will lead to more demands down the road. There is no point at which they will say "okay that's enough, we're happy now".

The only option is to oppose big government at every possible turn, and roll it back at every possible opportunity. Even that won't do it, but it may delay the inevitable by a few decades.

astralis
05 Jun 10,, 21:41
JAD,


Well, asty, if he could pull it off, where would that leave us?

that'd leave us with a considerably more erudite commentator :biggrin:


So, if Keith said it, it's wrong.

not at all. keith is correct about a lot of things (although of course IMO not exactly all...).

keith just said what will is trying to say, only more directly and in more honesty. will simply states that progressivism will keep on expanding to some unknown and undesired end state; IIRC keith just spelled out more directly what will was presumably thinking but didn't write-- the extremis of left-wing thought, communism.


Progressives believe government is responsible for the welfare of the people. To succeed they need "unlimited government", insofar as the passage of welfare programs is concerned. Their agenda has been helped by a series of Supreme Court decisions roughly translated as "the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned how bad social conditions in the US would become, and surely would not have prevented government from remedying them."

again, how does this square with the Third Way philosophy? i quote it here:


The Third Way philosophy seeks to adapt enduring progressive values to the new challenges of he information age. It rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.

The Third Way approach to economic opportunity and security stresses technological innovation, competitive enterprise, and education rather than top- down redistribution or laissez faire. On questions of values, it embraces "tolerant traditionalism," honoring traditional moral and family values while resisting attempts to impose them on others. It favors an enabling rather than a bureaucratic government, expanding choices for citizens, using market means to achieve public ends and encouraging civic and community institutions to play a larger role in public life. The Third Way works to build inclusive, multiethnic societies based on common allegiance to democratic values.

thus the third way explicitly rejects "unlimited government" that you say is the hallmark of the progressive. moreover, it also rejects the unspoken reaganite distaste for government at all; again, something keith said quite clearly-- how he wanted government to fail and be gridlocked, because when it succeeds, the individual loses, no matter the short term gain.

can we square the circle? i happen to like a small, efficient government capable of DOING things when needed...and that's what the Third Way espouses.

i don't understand this belief that the US is destined to fall into the gutter on the progressive politics of today. the US left was far, far more left a mere 40-60 years ago, had a far firmer hold of the government-- and we were in the middle of pax americana.

highsea
05 Jun 10,, 23:41
Will's article doesn't have to square with some imaginary "third way". That's not what he's writing about. He's writing about the U.S. Government.

Really, that third way philosophy is a bunch of nonsense. 3 "cornerstones" that are fundamentally contradictions.

the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none;The Gov't has declared that we can't have equal opportunity without granting special privileges. It's called affirmative action. Where are the third-wayers who should be speaking out against this?

an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment;Which is it? Government mandated entitlements or every man for himself? You can't say you are equally rejecting something when in reality you are advocating for both.

Who are the parties to this ethic of "mutual responsibility"? Is the government one of the parties? Why should a citizen enter into some kind of agreement with the government? The government is our servant, not an equal.

and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves.With rules and regulations that govern every aspect of citizen's lives. Where is this government? It sure as hell isn't the one in Washington D.C.

The US Constitution already empowers citizens, it's the government that encroaches on the individual.

The solution is very simple. Obey the Constitution. The mess the gov't has got the country in would unwind itself if the gov't would just do what it is supposed to be doing.

America doesn't need progressives or anyone else to redefine the role of Government. It needs the government to stop trying to manage every aspect of our daily existence. :mad:

ZekeJones
06 Jun 10,, 02:29
You can search for a middle ground, but you will never find it.

I used to think it was possible, but no more. Any compromise will lead to more demands down the road. There is no point at which they will say "okay that's enough, we're happy now".

The only option is to oppose big government at every possible turn, and roll it back at every possible opportunity. Even that won't do it, but it may delay the inevitable by a few decades.

I think it is still possible.
People will grow tired of the extreme Republican v. Democrat politics and will finally say enough is enough.

astralis
06 Jun 10,, 02:58
highsea,


Will's article doesn't have to square with some imaginary "third way". That's not what he's writing about. He's writing about the U.S. Government.

he's writing about the philosophies underlining how the USG should run. the third way is a new philosophy, something different than the progressivism he outlines and the conservatism he espouses.


It's called affirmative action. Where are the third-wayers who should be speaking out against this?

old article, but outlines the third way thinking.

PPI: Affirmative Action: Seeking a Third Way (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=2026&knlgAreaID=115&subsecid=172)


Which is it? Government mandated entitlements or every man for himself? You can't say you are equally rejecting something when in reality you are advocating for both.

the third wayer would say, social empowerment. ie "workfare" instead of welfare; micro-loans instead of handouts.


Who are the parties to this ethic of "mutual responsibility"? Is the government one of the parties? Why should a citizen enter into some kind of agreement with the government?

so what is the Contract with America? :)

as al from said:


More importantly, opportunity for all, mutual responsibility, and fostering community aren't exactly Republican themes. Unlike New Democrats, most Republicans believe that economic and social progress is generated by the efforts of a few wealthy elites, not by the talents of all us. They tend to embrace President Reagan's ethic of every man for himself, not President's Kennedy's ethic of asking what you can do for your country. And they tend to view government as an alien creature to be stamped out wherever possible, not the agent of our collective will and our instrument for helping Americans help themselves and each other.

zraver
06 Jun 10,, 03:32
The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.

Not always, small government was a bane to millions who were actively denied the chance to chase the American dream. When the states could beat up suspects,turn loose the dogs and deny counsel while enforcing discriminatory laws only men who were wealthy and white benefited. Blacks, women, immigrants, Catholics, workers/labor and a whole host of other groups were not free. It took big government's involvement to begin changing the truth of America's founding. If the founders had been honest men they would have said, "we the men with the money, who wish to make more of it, seek to create a more perfect union of our wealth and power."


I suppose whether or not someone thinks this is a good or bad thing depends on the value they place on individual liberty. We have certainly gone off the path the founders envisioned, you can't even see it from here.

Yup, we've mostly done away with slavery, sexism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, Native American holocaust.... Some of those groups still suffer horribly, but its not nearly as bad as it was. At least now they have a shot at liberty.


The land of opportunity has become the land of opportunists.

Then nothing has changed except the classes of people in the game. I am opposed to a lot of social welfare programs because they beget dependency, others I am in favor of because they serve liberty. White washing the founders and the flaws they wrote into to the Constitution does a disservice to the real American story. The Constitution is not God given, and while a great document, it has largely been ignored for most of this country's history. I'd love the "keep your hands out of my wallet and off my guns crowd get equally bent over social injustice. Talk about opportunist, to many on the right only care about #1. The right could have kept up the cause of social justice, instead they turned it over to the left who has perverted it into a political struggle for power not equality and liberty.

Imperator~
06 Jun 10,, 15:49
Well, asty, if he could pull it off, where would that leave us?



So, if Keith said it, it's wrong. :eek:



That's scaremongering stuff. Give me credit for little intelligence.:( Whether liberalism leads to a police state ruled by a paranoid sadist is another question. Anyway I don't believe it does. But the topic I meant to pursue is the viability of "unlimited government" as it pertains to social tinkering.

You use the term "liberal moderate", which to me is a liberal who is to embarrassed to march with Code Pink. I prefer the term Progressivism because it implies ceaseless movement.

Progressives believe government is responsible for the welfare of the people. To succeed they need "unlimited government", insofar as the passage of welfare programs is concerned. Their agenda has been helped by a series of Supreme Court decisions roughly translated as "the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned how bad social conditions in the US would become, and surely would not have prevented government from remedying them."

Of course, this is BS. The founders were quite clear that they were establishing a "limited government" and wanted it to stay that way. Hell, they had just rebelled against an "unlimited government" and knew firsthand
the dangers of one, especially to individual freedoms. By "limited" they meant a government that limits itself to the roles spelled out in the Constitution--period.

Today we can see the results of both the "limited government" they created and the "unlimited government" the courts have created. We can judge them by their fruits.

Today, our "unlimited government" can pass any social programs it deems good for the people, and there is no end in sight of its creativity. The cost is heavy and growing heavier. If it keeps passing more and more social programs, inevitably it will overtax the economy.

OTOH "limited government" does not seek to redress socio-economic imbalances. It does not create monetary entitlements; it does not define poverty so as to make war on it; it does not take from one citizen to give to another. It simply protects the right of each individual to pursue his life and happiness. This "limited government" benefited the US well for its first 125 years.

So, the question is, which is our best course? Is there a middle ground? Will progressivism lead to the ruin of the nation or a long period of economic pain? Is the other too insensitive and cruel to those in poverty and need?

Miller time. :))

good points.

I would add that when the liberal progressive set cannot fashion a digestible ( see; workable/fair) answer or pgrm. that works but has failed miserably ( take your pick) to/for a sect of 'societal ills', they proclaim the 'system broken', there by doing 2 things at once all to their benefit; giving themselves an out ala responsibility and putting the argument/debate off limits turning naysayers into 'deneirs', as Will ( or Voegeli) ascribes.

highsea
06 Jun 10,, 18:29
he's writing about the philosophies underlining how the USG should run. the third way is a new philosophy, something different than the progressivism he outlines and the conservatism he espouses.No, he's writing a book report. You can offer alternatives to Voegeli's views, but you can't criticize Will for not addressing what you think he should be addressing.

Write your own article. ;)

old article, but outlines the third way thinking.

PPI: Affirmative Action: Seeking a Third Way (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?contentid=2026&knlgAreaID=115&subsecid=172)The links in that article are broken, so I can't see specifically what they are advocating. The article itself is just a democratic strategy piece.

the third wayer would say, social empowerment. ie "workfare" instead of welfare; micro-loans instead of handouts.So where are these third-wayers? Who in the Congress today represents that view? Has anyone offered micro-loans as an alternative to the endless unemployment extensions they have been passing?

so what is the Contract with America? :)That required nothing from the citizen. It was a policy that laid out the responsibilities of the gov't to the citizens. There was no "mutual responsibility" there- it said "give us the Congress, and this is what we'll do".

highsea
06 Jun 10,, 19:10
Not always, small government was a bane to millions who were actively denied the chance to chase the American dream. When the states could beat up suspects,turn loose the dogs and deny counsel while enforcing discriminatory laws only men who were wealthy and white benefited. Blacks, women, immigrants, Catholics, workers/labor and a whole host of other groups were not free.If you are going to backtrack 150-200 years, you can find a lot of things that don't meet today's standards. The things you cite weren't enshrined in the Constitution. They have since been written in.

It took big government's involvement to begin changing the truth of America's founding. If the founders had been honest men they would have said, "we the men with the money, who wish to make more of it, seek to create a more perfect union of our wealth and power."When I talk of obeying the Constitution, I am talking about all of it, not just the articles and bill of rights.

But I'm interested in your perspective- what part of the Constitution do you say was slanted to only the white men of wealth? The only part that I can think of would be the 3/5 compromise, and that was only for apportionment purposes, and was written out in the 14th amendment.

Yup, we've mostly done away with slavery, sexism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, Native American holocaust.... Some of those groups still suffer horribly, but its not nearly as bad as it was. At least now they have a shot at liberty.What happened was the gov't started honoring the founding principles of equality and rule of law.

Then nothing has changed except the classes of people in the game.No, it's the same classes of people in control, but their power has expanded.

There is another class that's been added, and that's the dependents that make up nearly 50% of the population.

I am opposed to a lot of social welfare programs because they beget dependency, others I am in favor of because they serve liberty. White washing the founders and the flaws they wrote into to the Constitution does a disservice to the real American story.No one is advocating whitewashing anything. The thing I like about the Constitution is that we don't delete a single word. We amend it, but the parts we have changed are still there for all to see.

The Constitution is not God given, and while a great document, it has largely been ignored for most of this country's history. I'd love the "keep your hands out of my wallet and off my guns crowd get equally bent over social injustice.We do. You just choose to not see it in the same light. We believe you have a right to the fruits of your labors. We don't believe the government has the right to take your property or wealth and allocate it to someone else.

Talk about opportunist, to many on the right only care about #1. The right could have kept up the cause of social justice, instead they turned it over to the left who has perverted it into a political struggle for power not equality and liberty.Conservatives outspend liberals on charitable donations by a large margin. Liberals talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. We don't talk about it, we just do it. But we like to be able to choose what we support and don't support.

astralis
06 Jun 10,, 20:19
highsea,


but you can't criticize Will for not addressing what you think he should be addressing.

i'm not criticizing will for not addressing it; i'm saying he's taken a deliberately blind view of the center to present a starker case-- progressive and all government all the time; or conservatism and limited government.

well, that's not the only choice america has.


The article itself is just a democratic strategy piece.

well, this is the third way reaction to affirmative action, within the article:

"We must shift the focus from the means that divide us preferences, set-asides, and quotas to the ends that unite us: equal opportunity for everyone. And we must begin with two stipulations. First, racial discrimination remains a significant obstacle to the progress of African-Americans that demands a public response. Second, race and gender preferences cannot be the solution because a consistent majority of Americans consider them to be unjust and a threat to individual freedom.

Accept these premises, and the way is clear for a new bargain on race and equal opportunity that phases out the least defensible kinds of preference, sets reasonable boundaries on affirmative action that continues to serve a compelling public purpose, and, most important, looks beyond preferences altogether toward new and more effective strategies for dealing with the underlying problem of unequal racial endowments."


So where are these third-wayers? Who in the Congress today represents that view?

unfortunately not big enough; bayh and lincoln are probably the most prominent of the bunch. however, i do think they're still a force. just google all the progressive dem frothing over the last big article third-wayers came out with.

Key to U.S. growth is building wealth, not entitlements - Anne Kim and Jonathan Cowan - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36825.html)


There was no "mutual responsibility" there- it said "give us the Congress, and this is what we'll do".

the third way theme of mutual responsibility boils down to the idea that citizens have a responsibility to participate in the government, demand responsible governance, support effective governance; and that the government has the responsibility to be effective when needed,yet moderate in outlook and understand its limits.

note that this is different from the conservative ideal-- that the only responsibility of the government should be to minimize itself, with the people's responsibility as merely watchdogs of the government to make sure it does so.

dalem
06 Jun 10,, 20:43
the third way theme of mutual responsibility boils down to the idea that citizens have a responsibility to participate in the government, demand responsible governance, support effective governance; and that the government has the responsibility to be effective when needed,yet moderate in outlook and understand its limits.

note that this is different from the conservative ideal-- that the only responsibility of the government should be to minimize itself, with the people's responsibility as merely watchdogs of the government to make sure it does so.

It is impossible for government to NOT grow and gather more power to itself. ANY government. It's what it does. In order for that to not be true you'd have to staff your government with a majority of people who hate government. That's as likely to happen as a hospital staffed by a majority of people who hate medicine, or a fire station filled with guys who are not interested in preventing and fighting fires.

The "third way" is just a moderation of the march to totalitarianism, as is conservatism, for that matter, both classic and "neo".

If modern conservatism was not available then I'd think the third way stuff would be okay - it's better than socialism, or Socialism. But our Constitution already provides for the best answer, it just needs a government and populace who understand what its words mean.

-dale

highsea
06 Jun 10,, 20:49
i'm not criticizing will for not addressing it; i'm saying he's taken a deliberately blind view of the center to present a starker case-- progressive and all government all the time; or conservatism and limited government.All he's doing is reviewing a book. Since the book doesn't deal with your third way, why should he? He's not writing a treatise on governance, he talking about the liberalism that has taken over the federal government.

well, this is the third way reaction to affirmative action, within the article:

"We must shift the focus from the means that divide us preferences, set-asides, and quotas to the ends that unite us: equal opportunity for everyone. And we must begin with two stipulations. First, racial discrimination remains a significant obstacle to the progress of African-Americans that demands a public response. Second, race and gender preferences cannot be the solution because a consistent majority of Americans consider them to be unjust and a threat to individual freedom.

Accept these premises, and the way is clear for a new bargain on race and equal opportunity that phases out the least defensible kinds of preference, sets reasonable boundaries on affirmative action that continues to serve a compelling public purpose, and, most important, looks beyond preferences altogether toward new and more effective strategies for dealing with the underlying problem of unequal racial endowments."This is more of the same. Racial discrimination remains a problem, but race and gender preferences are a problem too. Fine- tell us another way. What is this new bargain? What are the more effective strategies?

Let me know when they have an actual set of workable proposals that address the problems of race and gender preferences.

unfortunately not big enough; bayh and lincoln are probably the most prominent of the bunch. however, i do think they're still a force. just google all the progressive dem frothing over the last big article third-wayers came out with.

Key to U.S. growth is building wealth, not entitlements - Anne Kim and Jonathan Cowan - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36825.html)So how did Bayh and Lincoln vote on the Health Care bill, stimulus, bailouts, and cap and trade? What about the other massive increases in gov't under Obama? Discretional spending has increased 18% in this Congress. Did they vote with the rest of the dems or did they oppose the new spending?

the third way theme of mutual responsibility boils down to the idea that citizens have a responsibility to participate in the government, demand responsible governance, support effective governance; and that the government has the responsibility to be effective when needed,yet moderate in outlook and understand its limits.Lol. I asked you this before, and you ignored it- do you think there is any area of our lives that the Gov't has no place in?

note that this is different from the conservative ideal-- that the only responsibility of the government should be to minimize itself, with the people's responsibility as merely watchdogs of the government to make sure it does so.I don't know if you believe that or you are just trying to marginalize conservatives. Conservative ideals include limited Federal gov't as per the US Constitution, fiscal responsibility in gov't, individual responsibility, low taxes, strong national defense, civic duty, law and order, and free enterprise capitalism, just to name a few.

astralis
06 Jun 10,, 21:57
dale,


It is impossible for government to NOT grow and gather more power to itself. ANY government. It's what it does. In order for that to not be true you'd have to staff your government with a majority of people who hate government. That's as likely to happen as a hospital staffed by a majority of people who hate medicine, or a fire station filled with guys who are not interested in preventing and fighting fires

if that's the case, every government in the world should descended into totalitarianism by now. the UK has had a continuous government since what, 1066? or if you like, 1688.

i'd argue the US had a more intrusive government in 1945 than it did ever since, too.

but i find both you and highsea's argument interesting, because it mirrors the fears of many of the founders, some of whom seemed dead certain that in a generation or two's time the whole structure would collapse and revert back to a monarchy.

astralis
06 Jun 10,, 22:12
highsea,


Racial discrimination remains a problem, but race and gender preferences are a problem too. Fine- tell us another way. What is this new bargain? What are the more effective strategies?

Let me know when they have an actual set of workable proposals that address the problems of race and gender preferences.

the traditional third way answer has been to reformulate affirmative action to apply to economic status instead of race. it's far easier for a family whom makes $100K a year to provide excellent schooling, after-school education, tutors, extracurriculars than it is for a family that makes $30K. thus, a 3.6 GPA by a child from the latter represents a higher achievement relative to a child from the former.


So how did Bayh and Lincoln vote on the Health Care bill, stimulus, bailouts, and cap and trade? What about the other massive increases in gov't under Obama? Discretional spending has increased 18% in this Congress. Did they vote with the rest of the dems or did they oppose the new spending?

RealClearPolitics - Senator Evan Bayh on Health Care (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/14/senator_evan_bayh_on_health_care_99563.html)

Lincoln, Bayh Won't Support Passing Health Care Fixes Via Reconciliation | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/lincoln-bayh-nelson-wont-support-passing-health-care-fixes-via-reconciliation.php)

given that republicans largely froze themselves out of negotiations given their lockstep opposition, it was left up to the moderate dems to actually cut some of the crap out.


Lol. I asked you this before, and you ignored it- do you think there is any area of our lives that the Gov't has no place in?

the limits as placed by the constitution.


Conservative ideals include limited Federal gov't as per the US Constitution, fiscal responsibility in gov't, individual responsibility, low taxes, strong national defense, civic duty, law and order, and free enterprise capitalism, just to name a few.

like i said, government minimalists. the USG should limit itself to JUST what the constitution says and no more.

in that case, i'm not quite sure where the "space exploration" you were defending so voraciously a few threads back show up in the constitution.

liberals believe the USG should be everywhere except for what's forbidden by the constitution.

third wayists believe in a spectrum; minimalism -and- maximalism depending on its efficiency, not as a matter of ideology.

dalem
06 Jun 10,, 22:14
dale,



if that's the case, every government in the world should descended into totalitarianism by now. the UK has had a continuous government since what, 1066? or if you like, 1688.

i'd argue the US had a more intrusive government in 1945 than it did ever since, too.

but i find both you and highsea's argument interesting, because it mirrors the fears of many of the founders, some of whom seemed dead certain that in a generation or two's time the whole structure would collapse and revert back to a monarchy.

I make no claims about the "drop dead date", just the direction of the curve.

-dale

astralis
06 Jun 10,, 22:43
dale,


I make no claims about the "drop dead date", just the direction of the curve.

-dale

still, some irony to that.

it's a very communist way of thinking-- "the progress of history" and the eventual destruction of the bourgeois democracy, no?

highsea
06 Jun 10,, 22:45
the traditional third way answer has been to reformulate affirmative action to apply to economic status instead of race. it's far easier for a family whom makes $100K a year to provide excellent schooling, after-school education, tutors, extracurriculars than it is for a family that makes $30K. thus, a 3.6 GPA by a child from the latter represents a higher achievement relative to a child from the former.More redistribution. My dad never made over 30K, but we kids made good grades. Of course, we had discipline in our schools in those days, not like today. The teachers were educated in the subjects they taught, and crappy ones were fired.

So what is the reformulation you propose? You're going to raise the EITC? Cut the bottom marginal rates? Increase the upper ones?

This is the problem with the income tax. It's used for social engineering.

given that republicans largely froze themselves out of negotiations given their lockstep opposition, it was left up to the moderate dems to actually cut some of the crap out.I'll answer for you. They voted "yea".

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396)

Repubs didn't freeze themselves out, they were frozen out by the dems and the White House. They were invited to one meeting in the beginning of 2008, the next time was the so-called summit with Obama that was televised. Every letter they wrote, every offer of participation was rebuked. None of the reforms they proposed were included, none of the bills they indroduced were called up for debate, none of their amendments were accepted, none of their proposals were scored by CBO.

The dems will pay for that in November.


the limits as placed by the constitution.As interpreted by whom?

Does the gov't have the right to tell me to wear a seatbelt in my car, or a helmet when I ride my motorcycle?

Does the gov't have the right to force me to buy health insurance?

Does the gov't have the right to confiscate my earnings and give them to someone else?

like i said, government minimalists. the USG should limit itself to JUST what the constitution says and no more.To the greatest extent possible, yes. The Constitution actually says that in the 10th amendment.

in that case, i'm not quite sure where the "space exploration" you were defending so voraciously a few threads back show up in the constitution.I don't believe that space exploration is exclusively the domain of the federal government, but I do believe that killing manned space exploration is a huge mistake. There is absolutely a national defense component to space, and there are certain things that aren't practical for private enterprise to do yet.

Just as the national highway system or the air traffic control system are not mentioned in the Constitution, I think you would have a hard time finding conservatives that oppose these areas of federal involvement.

Your absolutist characterisation of conservatism is off base.

astralis
07 Jun 10,, 02:37
highsea,

okay, quite a few points we've covered in other various threads, so i'll just hit on a few points we haven't covered (as much) in the past.


More redistribution. My dad never made over 30K, but we kids made good grades. Of course, we had discipline in our schools in those days, not like today. The teachers were educated in the subjects they taught, and crappy ones were fired.

yes, but it's redistribution to a very needed cause-- to ensure that we don't create a perpetual underclass and to promote the middle-class necessary for democratic society. giving them the means to succeed on their own vice creating a dependency on a handout.

that's what i don't understand; if you can get that federal money is necessary for manned space exploration or the national highway system as part of our national defense component, it shouldn't be a big intuitive leap in recognizing the national security component of developing a nation-wide knowledge/technical/educational base.


As interpreted by whom?

both the supreme court and the people, the ultimate arbiter.


Your absolutist characterisation of conservatism is off base.

perhaps, but no less (and obviously i'd say considerably less :biggrin:) than will's absolutist characterization of progressivism.

in any case, if you can justify government involvement in projects not specifically outlined in the constitution on the altar of national defense, then you should see that there's also room for involvement elsewhere in the other mandates as set out by the constitution:


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,

so i'm not sure why you're so dismissive of the third way. liberals might think just because the government HAS room for involvement, it should use it; conservatives might think the government has no room at all; third wayers might think that while there is room, it shouldn't be used unless there is a definite need that can't be done better by the private sector.

if anything, the third way falls closer to the conservative line of thinking than the liberal line. the difference is that it's a pragmatic conservatism, not a reflexive/ideological one.

dalem
07 Jun 10,, 07:58
dale,

still, some irony to that.

it's a very communist way of thinking-- "the progress of history" and the eventual destruction of the bourgeois democracy, no?

Well, it does get reset every once in a while. The next country to have a complete rewrite of its government might be even more libertarian to start off than we were. Our pendulum will no doubt swing back from the crazy far leftism of the last few decades back toward, and probably past, the center at some time in the future.


conservatives might think the government has no room at all

Your mixing "small-govt" conservatism in with "no-govt" Hard Libertarianism.

-dale

astralis
07 Jun 10,, 13:24
dale,


Our pendulum will no doubt swing back from the crazy far leftism of the last few decades back toward, and probably past, the center at some time in the future.

do you think the left of today is seriously more left-wing than the ones in 30s or 60s?

heck, if you could vote for clinton...it'd be interesting to hear your take on why clinton over dole, or bush 1.


Your mixing "small-govt" conservatism in with "no-govt" Hard Libertarianism.

-dale

nah, the no-govt hard libertarians probably want to go back to the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution :biggrin:

but fair enough, i'll amend that to say "little room" vice "no room". either way, they're certainly less flexible than the third way in determining 1.) when government action is needed 2.) when the private sector can't do it as well as the public sector.

this is all on a sliding spectrum, of course.

rj1
07 Jun 10,, 14:41
Progressives believe government is responsible for the welfare of the people. To succeed they need "unlimited government", insofar as the passage of welfare programs is concerned. Their agenda has been helped by a series of Supreme Court decisions roughly translated as "the founding fathers couldn't have envisioned how bad social conditions in the US would become, and surely would not have prevented government from remedying them."

Of course, this is BS. The founders were quite clear that they were establishing a "limited government" and wanted it to stay that way. Hell, they had just rebelled against an "unlimited government" and knew firsthand
the dangers of one, especially to individual freedoms. By "limited" they meant a government that limits itself to the roles spelled out in the Constitution--period.

Today we can see the results of both the "limited government" they created and the "unlimited government" the courts have created. We can judge them by their fruits.

You give politicians in both parties far too much credit first off because they want unlimited government so nothing checks their power. G.W. Bush as President didn't believe in limited government and he was representing the party that traditionally upheld limited government. So once he left power and the other party came in, they're going to be even more unlimited government than Bush because it's not like the other party can claim the moral high ground any longer.


Today, our "unlimited government" can pass any social programs it deems good for the people, and there is no end in sight of its creativity. The cost is heavy and growing heavier. If it keeps passing more and more social programs, inevitably it will overtax the economy.

OTOH "limited government" does not seek to redress socio-economic imbalances. It does not create monetary entitlements; it does not define poverty so as to make war on it; it does not take from one citizen to give to another. It simply protects the right of each individual to pursue his life and happiness. This "limited government" benefited the US well for its first 125 years.

So, the question is, which is our best course? Is there a middle ground? Will progressivism lead to the ruin of the nation or a long period of economic pain? Is the other too insensitive and cruel to those in poverty and need?

Ultimately that's up to the voters and they'll vote according to what they see. If we create a society that is a pseudo-aristocracy where the rich people are born rich, the poor people are born poor, they both die that way, and since the poor will always have more members, they'll vote for an unlimited government. If people are feeling more secure in their futures, they don't need government as much and will vote for a limited government. What's the country like right now? Lots of people very insecure. I'm in my 20s and I think I read that my generation is the first generation since before World War II to not think we'll have a better life than our parents.

I'm a firm believer that people in the end ultimately vote in their own self-interest. If you're a rich person, you're going to vote for the guy that says less taxes. If you're a poor person, you're going to vote for more handouts. If a majority of the country believes the current healthcare system doesn't work for them, what are they going to do? Vote for it to be nationalized by putting in politicians that agree with them. People that don't want nationalized healthcare then should look at the current system and fix the valid problems in it in a way that doesn't make a majority of the country vote for politicians that call for nationalized healthcare.

Society should aim for a strong middle-class, because no one worries less about government (not rich enough to influence politics other than voting and not poor enough to look for handouts) and they're busy with life but are also comfortable enough to enjoy it. If that occurs, limited and unlimited government can stay on a teeter-totter and balance each other out for the greater good of the country.

highsea
07 Jun 10,, 17:12
...yes, but it's redistribution to a very needed cause-- to ensure that we don't create a perpetual underclass and to promote the middle-class necessary for democratic society. giving them the means to succeed on their own vice creating a dependency on a handout.Problem is that it acheives in practice is the very thing you are trying to eliminate in theory. Go visit the Indian reservations across the country.

that's what i don't understand; if you can get that federal money is necessary for manned space exploration or the national highway system as part of our national defense component, it shouldn't be a big intuitive leap in recognizing the national security component of developing a nation-wide knowledge/technical/educational base.I have no problem with a solid public education system, I think it should be more of a state issue than a federal one. The US isn't a homogenous country, what works in one place doesn't necessarily work in another.

Certain areas are clearly in the federal realm- the national highway and air traffic systems are more than just national defense, they directly affect interstate commerce as well. The pitiful amount we spend on manned space exploration is a drop in the bucket, but we aren't yet to the point when it can be assumed by the private sector. There was a time when that applied to launching satellites too- not any more. The technological payoffs alone more than make up for the money spent.

What did we get for the $130 Billion we dumped into ED last year? That's more than 7 times what we spent on NASA, and much of NASA's budget ends up in the private sector aerospace companies.

in any case, if you can justify government involvement in projects not specifically outlined in the constitution on the altar of national defense, then you should see that there's also room for involvement elsewhere in the other mandates as set out by the constitution.Sure I do. It's a question of degree.

But as a rule, I believe in the limited role of federal gov't as envisioned by the founders, and I believe that the political left in this country doesn't. As the OP stated- the Constitution isn't an enabling document for the federal gov't. It's intended to enable the individual and the states, and limit the federal role.

so i'm not sure why you're so dismissive of the third way. liberals might think just because the government HAS room for involvement, it should use it; conservatives might think the government has no room at all; third wayers might think that while there is room, it shouldn't be used unless there is a definite need that can't be done better by the private sector.I dismiss it because it's not a factor. When dems start following those principles, maybe I'll believe you. What we've had in the last several years is massive growth of the federal government, it's high time to do some belt tightening. It's crippling our economy.

if anything, the third way falls closer to the conservative line of thinking than the liberal line. the difference is that it's a pragmatic conservatism, not a reflexive/ideological one.There are many things that give me pause in that third way platform you posted. First and foremost, I oppose all forms of mandatory income and wealth redistribution. It creates a subculture of dependency.

I don't like the language of "embracing tolerant traditionalism but resist efforts to impose it on others". That is such a loaded sentence it's scary. Who decides what parts are tolerated? Why do traditional values have to be "tolerated" to begin with? What so bad about traditional values? Who is trying to impose them on others?

If multiculturism is the be-all and end-all, there's always Canada.

dalem
07 Jun 10,, 17:20
dale,

do you think the left of today is seriously more left-wing than the ones in 30s or 60s?

Again, not my point. We GOT New Dealed. We GOT Great Societied. We GOT Health Cared. We GOT pretty much the entire media industry completely Leftied. We GOT patriotism and America turned into dirty words. Over the last 70 years this country has moved inexorably leftward.



heck, if you could vote for clinton...it'd be interesting to hear your take on why clinton over dole, or bush 1.

84? 1st election, voted Reagan because that's who my parents liked.
88? 1st semester of grad school, no time to whack off, let alone vote.
92? I was young and not very politically aware. Clinton seemed reasonable and young.
96? I think I skipped that one. Definitely felt that with the USSR gone, etc., we could stand another 4 years of a moderate prez, didn't see any point in Dole.
00? I have a much longer answer I can give from another forum, but I reluctantly voted Gore (and full Dem ticket), knew I had made a huge mistake the next day when he refused to concede.

Pretty much have voted straight repub ever since; for local stuff I pay more attention to libertarians and/or incumbent turnover.



nah, the no-govt hard libertarians probably want to go back to the Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution :biggrin:

but fair enough, i'll amend that to say "little room" vice "no room". either way, they're certainly less flexible than the third way in determining 1.) when government action is needed 2.) when the private sector can't do it as well as the public sector.

this is all on a sliding spectrum, of course.

If by "less flexible" you mean "more wary" then sure.

-dale

astralis
07 Jun 10,, 21:05
highsea,


Problem is that it acheives in practice is the very thing you are trying to eliminate in theory. Go visit the Indian reservations across the country.

education, not welfare. different results. the whole give a man a fish/teach him how to fish quote.


What did we get for the $130 Billion we dumped into ED last year? That's more than 7 times what we spent on NASA, and much of NASA's budget ends up in the private sector aerospace companies.


i suspect the disjunction is in the fact that our education system is largely focused around the state/local level, with dispursal of monies from both state and federal funds.
so being able to pin down effect is difficult, although i note quite a few states were admitting that without stimulus funds they would need to lay off teachers by the boatload.

i happen to like federal oversight, as it help ensures that no state goes off the reservation. in an ideal world people could pick up and leave if the education in an area grew bad enough, but obviously other factors play into this.

dalem
07 Jun 10,, 21:12
i happen to like federal oversight, as it help ensures that no state goes off the reservation. in an ideal world people could pick up and leave if the education in an area grew bad enough, but obviously other factors play into this.

I'm curious - what defines "the reservation" for you in the case of public education?

-dale

highsea
07 Jun 10,, 21:20
...education, not welfare. different results. the whole give a man a fish/teach him how to fish quote.You said reformulation of affirmative action based on ecomonic status. I am trying to nail down how this works. You pay for college for poor people? Is that the plan? Who holds the money? Are you expanding the EITC or not? Are you using the income tax to get the money?

You know that members of an Indian tribe will already get a college education paid for, right?

...although i note quite a few states were admitting that without stimulus funds they would need to lay off teachers by the boatload.Which they will have to do anyway. The stimulus money is running out, and it didn't generate the economic activity it was supposed to generate.

News flash. The democrat's wild spending sprees and new mandates have thrown so much uncertainty into the small business community that we've all gone to the mattresses.

Genosaurer
07 Jun 10,, 21:23
so being able to pin down effect is difficult, although i note quite a few states were admitting that without stimulus funds they would need to lay off teachers by the boatload.

Well, what else are they going to say? Whenever funding cuts come up, the threat is always that "we'll have to fire teachers!" (replace teachers with "police officers" or some other group of government workers that the public would view as distasteful to fire for other departments). It's never even concieveable that they could cut money anywhere else (Reduce administration? Delay or reduce scheduled raises? Athletics and extracurriculars?) - as soon as funding goes down, they say, boatloads of teachers are going to get it.

astralis
07 Jun 10,, 21:28
dale,


I'm curious - what defines "the reservation" for you in the case of public education?

-dale

well, if i had the luck to define and actually CONTROL that, i'd say for starters teaching of evolution and a far more rigorous and narrow historical/mathematical/scientific study. i'd support a national set guideline (not requirement), with federal money given out as per accomplishment of said guideline.

this is connected to my personal like of hamilton's idea of government (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_ccon.html#hamilton) better, but that's just me.

highsea
07 Jun 10,, 21:29
...as soon as funding goes down, they say, boatloads of teachers are going to get it.It's their tried-and-true. In Oregon they slapped $160 million in new taxes on businesses to "save the schools".

They completely ignored the fact that they had just passed a bond issue that was supposed to do that very thing.

zraver
07 Jun 10,, 21:33
You said reformulation of affirmative action based on ecomonic status. I am trying to nail down how this works. You pay for college for poor people? Is that the plan? Who holds the money? Are you expanding the EITC or not? Are you using the income tax to get the money?

By taxing you, other business owners and investors as well as that small percentage who makes oodles of money without actually having a trade ie the rich.

But there is a plus side, or should be. The other side of the taxation is a well trained competent workforce able to out produce anyone else. The problem isn't progressive taxation on social issues, its regulation of social issues. How many different taxes do you pay? You should be paying 3- local, state, federal. Every tax comes with paper work which means lost productivity, lost money and more government employees. If the total cost of social programs equals an average 40% combined tax rate, the paper work pushes it towards 50%. Streamlining the tax code would save you a lot of money.

Moving away from a progressive tax system back to or towards a regressive tax system won't solve any problems.


You know that members of an Indian tribe will already get a college education paid for, right?

No they don't. Some tribes offer it, but few can make use of it. If you couldn't pass the 8th grade in a non-reservation school you'll never graduate college.

astralis
07 Jun 10,, 21:37
geno,


Well, what else are they going to say? Whenever funding cuts come up, the threat is always that "we'll have to fire teachers!" (replace teachers with "police officers" or some other group of government workers that the public would view as distasteful to fire for other departments). It's never even concieveable that they could cut money anywhere else (Reduce administration? Delay or reduce scheduled raises? Athletics and extracurriculars?) - as soon as funding goes down, they say, boatloads of teachers are going to get it

this should be a different thread, but i'd love it if the world could work as in turtledove's short story, "Gladly Wolde He Lerne"-- where people start out as school administrators and work up to the pinnacle of the field, being a teacher.

highsea
07 Jun 10,, 21:55
By taxing you, other business owners and investors as well as that small percentage who makes oodles of money without actually having a trade ie the rich.

But there is a plus side, or should be. The other side of the taxation is a well trained competent workforce able to out produce anyone else. I've been hearing that one for a couple decades now. It has failed to materialize. In fact, I am seeing it get worse, not better.

No they don't. Some tribes offer it, but few can make use of it. If you couldn't pass the 8th grade in a non-reservation school you'll never graduate college.Most tribes make a contribution, but it's not the major portion. Most of the funding comes from the BIA, American Indian College Fund, Indian Health Service, various grants, and there are several colleges in the US that will automatically give full tuition, fees, and room-and-board waivers.

Yes, they have to meet minimum academic standards, but the issue of paying for it is largely non-existant.

dalem
07 Jun 10,, 22:11
dale,

well, if i had the luck to define and actually CONTROL that, i'd say for starters teaching of evolution and a far more rigorous and narrow historical/mathematical/scientific study. i'd support a national set guideline (not requirement), with federal money given out as per accomplishment of said guideline.


Seems fair.

-dale

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 00:19
I've been hearing that one for a couple decades now. It has failed to materialize. In fact, I am seeing it get worse, not better.

Yet depending on how you rank it0 hours work or work done per hour the US is either #1 or number 2 in the world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/business/worldbusiness/04output.html


Yes, they have to meet minimum academic standards, but the issue of paying for it is largely non-existant.

If they can't meet the course requirements, then college is a pipe dream. Social disruption among native Americans is as bad or worse as that found in the black community.

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 00:22
...Social disruption among native Americans is as bad or worse as that found in the black community.And you blame that on what? Insufficient redistribution of wealth to that population?

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 01:14
And you blame that on what? Insufficient redistribution of wealth to that population?

Institutional racism in the black community is real. Until we address it and fix it we are going to continue to spend money on welfare. Black in America is almost a legal verdict condemning a person to poverty. We as a society white wash it and claim otherwise, or claim its the black's fault but the reality is different.

School funding is primarily via property taxes. Historic discrimination means the black community has less wealth to support schools. This means they cannot attract and hire quality educators, new text books, support a robust curriculum or provide social supports. State funding does not make up the difference. Arkansas is one of the few states with mandated education expenses and the poorest districts (black) are only entitled to 80% of what the district at the 95 percentile gets.

Inside of the school, funding is redirected away from the main student body and pushed into AP courses that are white dominated.

In mixed districts, white dominated schools get more funding, better teachers and newer facilities.

Black students are many times more likely to be shoved into special education classes as learning disabled but without a specific diagnosis. basically the kids act up and get kicked into a slow paced unrewarding throw away class that leaves them unprepared to work. White kids who act up get Ridlin or other adhd drugs.

Thus black high schools graduate students who are not educated. At UCA where I work as a writing tutor, 52% of the remedial students are minority and less than 1% of Honors students are. The drop out rate is nearly 50% a semester. Black students, in particular black males cannot get the skills they need for a good job.

Then you add in the blatant racism in law enforcement. Arkansas is one of the best states in the nation for fairness in policing. We only arrest blacks at 3 times the rate we arrest whites.

Add a crimminal record in with a lack of skills and you insured the community continues to be unable to build wealth and graduate students who are skilled. To make matters worse blacks are much more likely to get prison terms of a year or more compared to whites who tend to get jail terms of a year or less. This rips dad away from the family so the money he could earn by what ever means is denied to his kids.

This is compounded by a welfare system that penalizes mothers who want dad involved. Thus to keep the food stamps rolling in since dad is a min-wage worker he is kicked out, grows despondent and drifts away. This denies his kids his love and nurturing. Which is a direct reason why black kids act up in class- social distruption. The high crime rates causes by poverty are a further causes of social disruption.

If that wasn't bad enough, when states seek to entice in jobs. They never do so into black areas. Prisons go to rural whites. Literally whites get hired to guard blacks... Private sector jobs brought in via tax breaks end up in communities with little minority presence and off the public transport grid. Since blacks are less likely to won cars, let alone reliable cars they cannot compete for these jobs even if they were qualified.

Finally for this essay, then the states have the black tax aka the lottery and liquor stores. Lotto and spirits retailers are clustered in low income and minority areas. The benefit of the tax money or lotto sales receipts collected then tend to be used for whites in the higher income brackets. In Arkansas, blacks are about 15% of the population, yet when the truth comes out I think they will make up 20% or more of the lotto sales, yet receive only about 1/3 of the scholarship money you expect based on their population. Since they are far less likely to graduate they may only get a year or 2 of money while whites get the full 4 years plus.

So ya, do I think some redistribution is in order, yes I do. Although i don't like welfare, I am with Astralis and want workfare. The problem above is why I hate the Democrats- they enjoy keeping people in bondage in order to secure their votes.

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 01:32
I thought we were talking about native americans? My point was, you can give them money, you can give them free college. If you create in them a personal identity of victim, that's the person you will get.

Same applies to blacks or any other minority. They've been told for so long that they are victims that they have no hope. No amount of money you pump in will change that.

The only way to make them equal is to treat them equal.

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 01:35
I thought we were talking about native americans? My point was, you can give them money, you can give them free college. If you create in them a personal identity of victim, that's the person you will get.

Same applies to blacks or any other minority. They've been told for so long that they are victims that they have no hope. No amount of money you pump in will change that.

The only way to make them equal is to treat them equal.

I know more about blacks than I do NA. If you read my post you'd know we don't treat them equal but as second class citizens. Treating them equal would be a major improvement.

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 01:57
I know more about blacks than I do NA. If you read my post you'd know we don't treat them equal but as second class citizens. Treating them equal would be a major improvement.The reason I was talking about Indians is because they have been told their entire lives they are victims, and even though they receive money and free college, they still live like paupers on the reservations. The ones who get away from the res do pretty well. The opportunities are there, but it's up to them to take advantage of them.

On to your comments-I assume the reason blacks get arrested 3 times more often is because they commit 3 times more crimes. If not, then you just have crappy cops.

They believe they are second class citizens, because that's what people like you tell them. For all your good intentions, that doesn't do them any favors. If they truly believed they were equals in society, they wouldn't stand for second-class treatment for 5 seconds.

I've never taken food stamps or any kind of public assistance, not because I couldn't qualify, but because I'm too damn proud. In tough times I have always just sucked it up and went on. And there have been tough times. I've lived on a boat with no heat or running water, and dug clams for my dinner. And I hate clams.

This is what I mean by treating them equal. Too much help can harm. You instill in them a sense of second class citizen by calling them "underserved" and other such crap. If you give them the chance to stand up on their own, they will. If you keep doing it for them, their situation will never improve.

I think it's great that you tutor them. I hope you take the opportunity to inspire them to work harder and take pride in who they are.

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 02:06
You know Z, I was in LA the day of the Rodney King riots. My plane was the last one to leave LAX that day. The smoke was rising at the end of the runway as we took off.

So it was a bad verdict, fine. But what was their response? They trashed their own neighborhoods, burned their own shops. Where's the sense in that?

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 02:15
On to your comments-I assume the reason blacks get arrested 3 times more often is because they commit 3 times more crimes. If not, then you just have crappy cops.

Arkansas is one of the best in the nation at only 3x the rate of whites, California is much worse. Nor do they commit crimes at 3x the rate whites do, or 16 times the rates whites do in Iowa. Nor are the crimes they commit so much worse than whites as to deserve prison vs jail.


They believe they are second class citizens, because that's what people like you tell them. For all your good intentions, that doesn't do them any favors. If they truly believed they were equals in society, they wouldn't stand for second-class treatment for 5 seconds.

Its not what people like me tell them, its they way they are treated. You want to blame them, but look at the facts please.


I've never taken food stamps or any kind of public assistance, not because I couldn't qualify, but because I'm too damn proud. In tough times I have always just sucked it up and went on. And there have been tough times. I've lived on a boat with no heat or running water, and dug clams for my dinner. And I hate clams.

How much free food can be found in the ubran ghetto? A beggar might make it, but what about an undereducated mother with a couple of kids?


This is what I mean by treating them equal. Too much help can harm. You instill in them a sense of second class citizen by calling them "underserved" and other such crap. If you give them the chance to stand up on their own, they will. If you keep doing it for them, their situation will never improve.

I am combating a system that actively holds them down so they can self improve. Denying that the game is rigged doesn't make it a fair game.

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 02:37
I'm not going to argue it with you, and I don't really want to spend the time to delve into the examples you give and research the statistics. If there is genuine racism at work, it's already illegal, I don't know what you expect from me.

I disagree with your solution (making them public dependents), because it is a proven fail. That's why I used the American Indians as an example. They have opportunities, but they have an alternative as well.

Some will make the decision to take the opportunity, others will take the easy path of public dependency.

The only real solution is to take away the easy path.

dalem
08 Jun 10,, 02:43
I know more about blacks than I do NA. If you read my post you'd know we don't treat them equal but as second class citizens. Treating them equal would be a major improvement.

You can't treat a person as an equal if you first think of them as different and in need of special treatment.

-dale

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 02:50
I'm not going to argue it with you, and I don't really want to spend the time to delve into the examples you give and research the statistics. If there is genuine racism at work, it's already illegal, I don't know what you expect from me.

I disagree with your solution (making them public dependents), because it is a proven fail. That's why I used the American Indians as an example. They have opportunities, but they have an alternative as well.

Some will make the decision to take the opportunity, others will take the easy path of public dependency.

The only real solution is to take away the easy path.

The solution is to make the path open to them. Like I said, I favor workfare. What I expect from you is simple. Take your head out of the sand and actually look at whats going on.

dalem,


You can't treat a person as an equal if you first think of them as different and in need of special treatment.

Roger that, I want to end the negative special treatment they are subjected to, not give them positive special treatment.

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 02:59
The solution is to make the path open to them. Like I said, I favor workfare.The path is there, you can't force them on it.

What I expect from you is simple. Take your head out of the sand and actually look at whats going on.I see what's around me. I don't know what it's like in Arkansas, never been there. If you intend to start talking down to me, you'll get it right back.

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 03:01
http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf

Here's what white privilege sounds like... (http://www.dickshovel.com/priv.html)

please read.

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 03:04
The path is there, you can't force them on it.

Its not forcing them on it, they want to be on it. Its letting them on it.



I see what's around me.

Do you? You'd be the first since Plato's man in the cave to see the world as it truly is. That includes me, we see shades of the truth, the quest is to see the truth with more clarity, not perfect clarity. Then to pass on what we see to those still staring at the dancing shadows.


I don't know what it's like in Arkansas, never been there. If you intend to start talking down to me, you'll get it right back.

Like I said, Arkansas is one of the better places for blacks. If its bad here, its worse elsewhere.

dalem
08 Jun 10,, 03:08
http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf

Here's what white privilege sounds like... (http://www.dickshovel.com/priv.html)

please read.

I got no further than the first line.

-dale

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 03:24
http://www.case.edu/president/aaction/UnpackingTheKnapsack.pdf

Here's what white privilege sounds like... (http://www.dickshovel.com/priv.html)

please read.I read them both. Here's one for you. Please read.

The age of white guilt: and the disappearance of the black individual (http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/156.html)

astralis
08 Jun 10,, 13:34
highsea,

here's another important difference between conservatives, liberals, and centrists.

conservatives believe that power/responsibility mostly lies within the individual to completely influence his/her life. case in point, you argue (correctly, IMO) that a culture of dependency creates a new generation of demoralized, dependent people. however, your solution is to cut them off and have them sink or swim.

liberals believe that power/responsibility most lies within society, ie factors beyond the control of any individual. the individual is powerless against the "tides of society". thus it's the responsibility of society, and presumably the better-off, to baby them and give them everything to eliminate the haves and have-nots.

centrists believe that life isn't at either absolute. while individual drive is absolutely crucial, we can also note that outside factors such as access to nutrition, to after-school programs/tutoring, decent parenting, a peaceful environment, other high-achieving friends, and a million other things influence the development of an individual. thus the method to solving this problem is to reduce the factors that are outside of individual control and give them the opportunity to succeed-- or fail-- based on individual factors.

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 13:35
I read them both. Here's one for you. Please read.

The age of white guilt: and the disappearance of the black individual (http://www.cir-usa.org/articles/156.html)

I read it, and he maes some good points, points I have not disagreed with. However he ignores the validity of what he calls structural racism. At that point we part ways. The evidence for institutional racism is clear and as long as it exists, black empowerment is going to be a pipe dream. The changes needed to combat it are simple, but would take about 20 years. We have to structurally change how we approach the next generation.

1. At the state level equalized school funding per student. Codify the right of black students to get as much money as for their education as whites at a minimum.

2. Require specific medical diagnosis to put a kid in special ed

3. revamp sentencing guidelines and prosecutorial discretion to remove the racial bias in the courts.

4. Revamp welfare to encourage a wage earning male to be present. Minimum wage won't add much, but every little bit helps and more importantly it puts dad back in the home. 2 wage earners would be even better. The accumulation of wealth is critical. Just having a reliable car opens up better job opportunities. Instead of free money and rent- make it profitable to work. Remove rent supports and free money. Instead help employers pay a better wage and offer child care. To get assistance they have to work.

If you have to, have make work programs- repairing parks, helping the elderly, filling pot holes, painting over graffitti etc. Give dad something to do and pride in his community. Dad is the one who transmits most of the values to the next generation.

5. Break the power of the teachers unions, make promotion merit based and offer incentives for good teachers to stay at or move to troubled schools. Increase school vouchers.

6. Give black students credit for what they do know. African American Vernacular English is a real language. Black's are often bi-lingual and don't know it or get credit for it. American Standard English training needs to be increased at the same time. We do intensive supports for foreign born students, but blacks often need it just as much since they come to college speaking and writing in a tongue that is not ASE

7. Build up a network of social supports designed to counter the social disruption in the black communities. For teens a focus on vocational and educational enrichment programs.

8. Create an environment that encourages companies to move into black areas and hire black workers. Kids need to see mom and dad working and getting ahead. This would provide jobs and remove the talent tax on black communities. Right now if a black student does rise to the top, he moves away and never comes back and the community that raised him gets no return on its investment.

9. Move Prisons closer to major urban centers so non-hardcore criminals who are dads can visit their kids.

10. Break up the Ghettos and spread them out in lower density regions so that the cultural exposure on both sides goes up. Right now the majority of blacks in America are locked into small urban regions with little outside contact. This gives negative messages much more power.

11. Adopt a core curriculum that forces learning math, science, history and civics.

Where these things have been tried, results have been seen. Rather than handouts, they are nudges designed to heal and empower.

12. legalize drugs and break the power of the gangs and single biggest cause of dad being absent from the home.

13. Stress the role of non-athletic blacks. Condie Rice, Powell, Marshall, Major Johnson (for his inner city work), MLK, Douglas etc.

14. End race based extortion groups like Rainbow Push.

rj1
08 Jun 10,, 14:38
Black students are many times more likely to be shoved into special education classes as learning disabled but without a specific diagnosis. basically the kids act up and get kicked into a slow paced unrewarding throw away class that leaves them unprepared to work. White kids who act up get Ridlin or other adhd drugs.

Thus black high schools graduate students who are not educated. At UCA where I work as a writing tutor, 52% of the remedial students are minority and less than 1% of Honors students are. The drop out rate is nearly 50% a semester. Black students, in particular black males cannot get the skills they need for a good job.

Raising a student is not 100% a school's job. A lot of what makes a kid either try hard or goof off and accomplish nothing is parenting. I live in a majority-black area in North Carolina, where I work is maybe 80-90% black, and I'm an engineer at the factory. Every year my group takes a 12th-grader from one of the local high schools that's interested in pursuing a technical education and gets paid for 20 hours of work a week. It's so happened every time the intern has been black although I don't think that's a requirement. Every time the high school senior was intelligent, willing to do work, show up on time, etc. The reason? As far as I can tell they had parents that took an interest in their education and pushed them to succeed. The intern my group just had that just graduated from high school is going to Embry Riddle on a full-ride scholarship.


I grew up poor when I was little (later on we'd become middle-class once my mom got a degree and got a job), I'm white, my dad worked 80 hours a week while in the Marines in the early '80s and yet he still qualified for welfare trying to push my mom through college and raise me and my sister when we were little kids. Good to know the nation always took care of the people that took care of it. :rolleyes: (by the way, never applied or took welfare because he knew he'd have no motivation to get off). They made sure me and my sister had everything we needed, and then after covering other expenses like apartment and transportation, they had $40 left for food for themselves, and all they could eat with that was chicken liver. In spite of his heavy work schedule, he made sure to sit in a sandbox with me and teach me the alphabet and how to read and write at 3 years old. Everything I am today is because of him. The key to taking anyone out of poverty, regardless of color, is ambition and a parent that wants to see their child have a better life than him or her. I have some people in my family that are little different than the black community you just described, it's just they're poor whites rather than poor blacks, the parents didn't take an interest in raising them and no help is coming for them in the future.


8. Create an environment that encourages companies to move into black areas and hire black workers. Kids need to see mom and dad working and getting ahead. This would provide jobs and remove the talent tax on black communities. Right now if a black student does rise to the top, he moves away and never comes back and the community that raised him gets no return on its investment.

That's a true problem, but not one that is race-based because where I'm from (a military town) has the same problem. It's a function of young people not wanting to live in the sticks and stay in cities so that's where businesses go to in order to hire the best people. If you're a business, where are you going to be able to attract better workers in this globalized economy, Houston or Waco?

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 14:55
The key to taking anyone out of poverty, regardless of color, is ambition and a parent that wants to see their child have a better life than him or her. I have some people in my family that are little different than the black community you just described, it's just they're poor whites rather than poor blacks, the parents didn't take an interest in raising them and no help is coming for them in the future.

Did you notice how often I stress thigns designed to move black dads back into the family? Current programs breed dependency and destroy the family creating more dependency- all good for Democrats. Breaking that cycle is critical.

rj1
08 Jun 10,, 16:02
Did you notice how often I stress thigns designed to move black dads back into the family? Current programs breed dependency and destroy the family creating more dependency- all good for Democrats. Breaking that cycle is critical.

It's ultimately up to the dad and he has take responsibility. No one can force him to.

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 17:16
It's ultimately up to the dad and he has take responsibility. No one can force him to.


But you can force him out of the home, that is what I am saying. As it is set up now there is no role for dad. Repairing the black community has to include getting dads involved their children's lives. Stable community, good students, and the attraction and retention of jobs.

Roosveltrepub
08 Jun 10,, 17:39
highsea,

here's another important difference between conservatives, liberals, and centrists.

conservatives believe that power/responsibility mostly lies within the individual to completely influence his/her life. case in point, you argue (correctly, IMO) that a culture of dependency creates a new generation of demoralized, dependent people. however, your solution is to cut them off and have them sink or swim.

liberals believe that power/responsibility most lies within society, ie factors beyond the control of any individual. the individual is powerless against the "tides of society". thus it's the responsibility of society, and presumably the better-off, to baby them and give them everything to eliminate the haves and have-nots.

centrists believe that life isn't at either absolute. while individual drive is absolutely crucial, we can also note that outside factors such as access to nutrition, to after-school programs/tutoring, decent parenting, a peaceful environment, other high-achieving friends, and a million other things influence the development of an individual. thus the method to solving this problem is to reduce the factors that are outside of individual control and give them the opportunity to succeed-- or fail-- based on individual factors.

I'm pretty liberal and in a liberal state and I don't believe that. I do believe in using taxes to better schools and provide social support for disadvantaged areas and families. It's in societies best interest if those who have more hurdles in the way of succuss get the support they need to clear them. A better educated populus is better for everyone. This does take some redistribution of wealth. Cities by their nature are catch basins for the disadvantaged. Someone from Greenwhich with some mental, substance abuse problems may get a subsistance job and raise a family but it will be in Bridgeport not Greenwhich. That family is going to need increased services to increase the chances children will not get stuck uneducated in poverty. Since those with problems functioning in society end up leaving wealthy communities for cities the transference of wealth is somewhat negated. They shed populations which require social services from their tax rolls.

I also think using taxes for public improvements is great and it does redistribute wealth as well. It ends up being value added for the Country as a whole. I think borrowing money to give taxcuts is/was retarded. It is and remains a generational tax.

I'm all for smart goverment regulation. The goverment can help mitigate some of the negatives greed creates. I think we saw that post Depression. Strong regulations worked. We didn't have a bank crisis till we started deregulating again.
I'm not so worried someone is getting something I am not because I look at what they are getting as good for the greater economy and society and I get an indirect benefit. I view a lot of Conservatives as "worried" about this. The myth of the welfare Queen living large.

I don't want to be France but do believe a subsistance dole is good for all. Hungry people riot. Too have large numbers of people hopeless, hungry and fearing homelessness is destabilizing.

I also won't vote for people who believe goverment doesn't work or is by it's nature bad. It goes without saying those that don't believe it can be good give us bad governance.

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 17:45
...however, your solution is to cut them off and have them sink or swim.No, I have never said that is the solution.

What I have said is the way it's addressed today perpetuates the problem rather than solves it.

And I have said that I am against policies of income and wealth redistribution. That is a fundamental belief of mine- I think it's immoral for the gov't to take from one person under threat of imprisonment, and give it to someone else for the purpose of creating an income/wealth equality.

This is a different issue than general taxation, which should benefit everyone on equal terms.

I don't have a solution. I suspect it will be something that has to be done at the community and family level, and from within the particular groups we're talking about, be it native americans, blacks, whites, whoever.

I don't believe the federal government can solve it, though it could help create the conditions to make it solvable. I do agree that education is an important factor, but it isn't the solution. The key is to instill a sense of responsibility and values, and education is only a part of that.

astralis
08 Jun 10,, 18:51
RR,


I'm pretty liberal and in a liberal state and I don't believe that. I do believe in using taxes to better schools and provide social support for disadvantaged areas and families. It's in societies best interest if those who have more hurdles in the way of succuss get the support they need to clear them.

you're not that liberal compared to the outright "true" liberals, the type that view the term "progressive" as a mamby-pamby out.

i believe in social support but i think it should be contingent on ability to hunt down and secure a job. same with education; you should only get funds if you can prove that your kid is getting, well, educated.

ie making sure support isn't just allowing you a free ride on the backs of other citizens. obviously there's wealth redistribution involved, but the essence of government is wealth redistribution: people banding together/pooling resources for security, because they can't afford it on their lonesome.

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 22:04
No matter how hard I look, I just can't find the Marxist doctrine in the US Constitution.

I guess they print a different version out here in the west.

Roosveltrepub
08 Jun 10,, 22:10
No matter how hard I look, I just can't find the Marxist doctrine in the US Constitution.

I guess they print a different version out here in the west.

Well, it isn't there stop looking. Is someone advocating state ownership of all the means of production?

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 22:25
Well, it isn't there stop looking. Is someone advocating state ownership of all the means of production?You mean besides Obama?

Astralis knows I was referring to his comment: "but the essence of government is wealth redistribution: people banding together/pooling resources for security, because they can't afford it on their lonesome."

He refused to acknowledge the commonly held distinction between benefit taxation and redistributive taxation. To him they are the same thing, and all commerce can be defined as redistribution of wealth.

Taxation for the purpose of national security is an example of benefit taxation, because it (the benefit of national security) applies to all people equally- think of it as a "user charge" that is assessed to cover the cost of providing the service of national defense.

Redistributive taxation is Marxist/Socialist doctrine, and it refers to taxes that are levied to achieve a certain economic objective for a specific class of people.

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 22:38
You mean besides Obama?

Astralis knows I was referring to his comment: "but the essence of government is wealth redistribution: people banding together/pooling resources for security, because they can't afford it on their lonesome."

He refused to acknowledge the commonly held distinction between benefit taxation and redistributive taxation. To him they are the same thing, and all commerce can be defined as redistribution of wealth.

Taxation for the purpose of national security is an example of benefit taxation, because it (the benefit of national security) applies to all people equally- think of it as a "user charge" that is assessed to cover the cost of providing the service of national defense.

Redistributive taxation is Marxist/Socialist doctrine, and it refers to taxes that are levied to achieve a certain economic objective for a specific class of people.

National security does not benefit everyone equally, national security protects the status quo and business. For people on the bottom rung of society, very little if any benefit accrues to them except jobs if they want to risk their lives. In fact, military jobs have been one of the better social advancement mechanism for minorities and lower class persons. All taxes leave someone out in the cold and all are redistributive.

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 22:58
^^^ bs

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 23:04
^^^ bs


No its not, we spend 600 billion or so a year with defense and war cost spending. many Americans reap no benefit from the tax burden that imposes.

highsea
08 Jun 10,, 23:16
No its not, we spend 600 billion or so a year with defense and war cost spending. many Americans reap no benefit from the tax burden that imposes.There isn't a single American that doesn't enjoy the benefit of an America free from invasion by a foreign power.

The fact that some have more to lose than others is irrelevant. Those people also pay a larger share of the cost.

The benefit of a secure nation is enjoyed by every single person equally, including the nearly 50% of the population that pay no income taxes.

gunnut
08 Jun 10,, 23:23
The benefit of a secure nation is enjoyed by every single person equally, including the nearly 50% of the population that pay no income taxes.

Are you sure about that? Maybe those people want a foreign invasion to spice things up a bit. Maybe become slaves or 2nd class citizens for a foreign government. Maybe they want to practice speaking another language.

You never know...

zraver
08 Jun 10,, 23:26
There isn't a single American that doesn't enjoy the benefit of an America free from invasion by a foreign power.

The fact that some have more to lose than others is irrelevant. Those people also pay a larger share of the cost.

The benefit of a secure nation is enjoyed by every single person equally, including the nearly 50% of the population that pay no income taxes.

What benefit does the ghetto get? There are whole segments of society that see no benefit. As for invasion, have you looked around you? we are being invaded and the principle job of our military- to defend our borders and way of life is going ignored.

astralis
08 Jun 10,, 23:26
highsea,


Astralis knows I was referring to his comment: "but the essence of government is wealth redistribution: people banding together/pooling resources for security, because they can't afford it on their lonesome."

He refused to acknowledge the commonly held distinction between benefit taxation and redistributive taxation. To him they are the same thing, and all commerce can be defined as redistribution of wealth.

any and all taxes ARE a redistribution of wealth. costs are relative per person and so are benefits.

for tax-wise, it doesn't matter if it's flat-- like i've said a million times, a billionaire paying 20% on his taxes will see far less impact on his lifestyle than a guy earning 40K paying 20%.

similarly, for benefits, even if we limit government intervention to preservation of commonly-defined "public goods", say, the environment or defense, people will rate things differently. some people find greater utility in clean air than others; similarly, some people will find greater utility in one aspect of national defense than others.

just because you assess that the benefit is spread equally doesn't mean other people will think the same.

astralis
08 Jun 10,, 23:33
for example, say the US was a militarist state and we spent 20-40% of our GDP on defense, much like the USSR.

taxes could be put at a flat rate of 70% to fund the latest weapon, geared towards ostensibly our security.

are you going to tell me those taxes are not re-distributive in nature because everyone somehow benefits from the spending equally?

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 00:12
for example, say the US was a militarist state and we spent 20-40% of our GDP on defense, much like the USSR.

taxes could be put at a flat rate of 70% to fund the latest weapon, geared towards ostensibly our security.

are you going to tell me those taxes are not re-distributive in nature because everyone somehow benefits from the spending equally?

That 20-40% is spent on a benefit that is enjoyed by everyone equally. I don't know what you did with the rest of the money.

Look, you can call a pile of dog shit an apple fritter, but then you have to come up with another name for apple fritters.

I'm saying that a tax levied for a purpose like national defense is not an example of redistribution of income, because the purpose of the tax is not to create an economic effect on a specific portion on the population at the expense of another portion.

This is why economists distinguish between the two.

Redistributive taxes are when the State uses it's coercive apparatus to get some citizens to come to the aid of others. You can argue that this is a regrettable necessity, fine. But you can't redefine the term.

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 00:34
National security does not benefit everyone equally, national security protects the status quo and business. For people on the bottom rung of society, very little if any benefit accrues to them except jobs if they want to risk their lives. In fact, military jobs have been one of the better social advancement mechanism for minorities and lower class persons. All taxes leave someone out in the cold and all are redistributive.

Laughable.

People on the bottom rung of society would be just as dead or enslaved as people on the top if we did not have a military.

-dale

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 00:40
Astralis- think of it like this. A benefit tax is when the State provides a public service. This can be education, national defense, roads, etc. Ideally, the tax burden on the individual would be in proportion to the benefit received.

A redistributive tax doesn't involve the State providing a service. This goes beyond things like the EITC, but it's one example. Another example would be where the State taxes an entity that pollutes. That entity is (in theory) causing a societal harm, and the tax offsets that harm to the people who did not pollute.

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 00:46
Laughable.

People on the bottom rung of society would be just as dead or enslaved as people on the top if we did not have a military.

-dale

doubtful, not to break Godwins law but since you said dead and enslaved we have two great examples. Russia and Poland- who did the Nazi's liquidate and who did they simply tax. Even conquerors need cheap labor. When your on the bottom, your on the bottom.

Highsea,

[quote]I'm saying that a tax levied for a purpose like national defense is not an example of redistribution of income, because the purpose of the tax is not to create an economic effect on a specific portion on the population at the expense of another portion.[/quoe]

While that may be true in general or historically that is not the case today. Our defense spending insurers massive profits for shareholders and jobs in favored congressional districts. Programs like the V-22 Osprey get forced on our military against its will in order to pad earnings reports and pork barrels. Also look at the fight over base closings. The V-22 program alone redirected $12.7 billion dollars away from other uses.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 01:14
...While that may be true in general or historically that is not the case today. Our defense spending insurers massive profits for shareholders and jobs in favored congressional districts. Programs like the V-22 Osprey get forced on our military against its will in order to pad earnings reports and pork barrels. Also look at the fight over base closings. The V-22 program alone redirected $12.7 billion dollars away from other uses.That is simply an argument on how the tax dollars are used. Aerospace workers are not a socioeconomic class, and the taxes weren't levied just to make their lives better. In theory, anyway. Appropriations are a corrupt process, malfeasance exists. But I'm talking about the philosophical and economic rationale for levying the tax, not how efficiently the revenues are spent.

All taxation is not redistributive by definition. Much of it is applied that way, but that is a choice, not a necessity. Gas taxes, when used for roads, are a benefit tax that are proportional to the benefit gained. The more you drive, the more you pay. When that money is diverted into public transportation systems, it becomes redistributive in that the users are receiving a benefit disproportional to the taxes they paid.

Here in Portland, they took money from the highway fund and used it to build a tram to a university hospital. The hospital employees and students get to ride for free. The people who paid for it (drivers) don't get any benefit at all, and we have terrible congestion on the highway. So a tax that was levied as a benefit tax was converted to a redistributive tax. At least a portion of it.

It's a blurry line in most cases. That transit system is a service provided by the governement, so there is a benefit derived. Sometimes this is indirect- for example the congestion might be worse if it didn't exist. But that's a fairly thin argument- if the money was used for more lanes, it would definitely be better.

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 01:18
doubtful, not to break Godwins law but since you said dead and enslaved we have two great examples. Russia and Poland- who did the Nazi's liquidate and who did they simply tax. Even conquerors need cheap labor. When your on the bottom, your on the bottom.


I don't accept those examples for your argument. Those were totalitarian empires not representative governments. To stick with WWII though, the U.S. military was charged with protecting all Americans, even the Japanese stuck in internment camps and segregated blacks who were not viewed as good enough to serve alongside good clean white folk.

-dale

Roosveltrepub
09 Jun 10,, 01:27
The V-22 program alone redirected $12.7 billion dollars away from other uses.

very expensive bus

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 01:44
very expensive bus

I never accept this argument (zraver's) either. It's never guns OR butter. It's always guns AND butter, and as much of each as we can borrow for.

-dale

Gun Grape
09 Jun 10,, 02:12
. Programs like the V-22 Osprey get forced on our military against its will in order to pad earnings reports and pork barrels. Also look at the fight over base closings. The V-22 program alone redirected $12.7 billion dollars away from other uses.

BS. Maybe another program but the Corps fought tooth and nail for the Osprey. Even after it was canceled (both times).

It wasn't forced on the military. The Corps forced Congress to fund it.

And a wise choice it was.

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 02:28
BS. Maybe another program but the Corps fought tooth and nail for the Osprey. Even after it was canceled (both times).

It wasn't forced on the military. The Corps forced Congress to fund it.

And a wise choice it was.

oops I was wrong, its 27 billion with another 25 billion to come and 110 million an air frame. USMC officers have gone to jail for lying about the aircraft. It can't enter hostile air-space, can't auto-rotate.....

astralis
09 Jun 10,, 02:35
highsea,


'm saying that a tax levied for a purpose like national defense is not an example of redistribution of income, because the purpose of the tax is not to create an economic effect on a specific portion on the population at the expense of another portion.

the purpose of the tax might not be to create an economic effect on a specific portion of the population, but the defacto effect would be.

that's why economists say that all taxes distort the economy in some way or form; the effect just needs to be balanced against societal need.

i accept the fact that punitive taxation has a different role from what you call a "benefit tax", and in fact i actually recognize that this has benefits now and then. obviously i understand this is MORE redistributive; that's their purpose.

however, all taxes, either by purpose or not, are still inherently redistributive; the question is by how much and whom gets primarily affected.

JAD_333
09 Jun 10,, 02:35
again, how does this square with the Third Way philosophy?

Asty, sorry to take so long to answer. Been busy.

The Third Way is the center, e.g. Clinton. I remember well when Bill Clinton began taking away the Republicans' thunder during his first term by co-opting parts of their traditional message, principally calling for greater fiscal responsibility and less emphasis on social programs. As a Republican, I thought "what the hell." But we all saw it a smart political tactic designed to push the GOP farther right and win reelection. Later we realized he was a third wayer: he really believed in melding conservative thinking with social responsibility, and it turned out he wasn't the first to take that approach. ButI won't go into that. One thing I liked about the Third Way is the insistence that social programs be paid for within a balanced budget. Clinton did go along with the Republicans in Congress on welfare reform and he did achieve a surplus by the end of his 2nd term.

But the Third Way doesn't change the big brother relationship between the central government and the private sector that has grown up since the country was founded. There is nothing in it to correct growing government interference in our lives. Laissez-faire, it is not.


can we square the circle? i happen to like a small, efficient government capable of DOING things when needed...and that's what the Third Way espouses.

I can't agree or disagree with you on this because being "capable of DOING things when needed" covers a wide swath. And the things you might think are "needed" may be viewed as unneeded by others.

Just because we can fix a problem doesn't mean we ought to. One person's fix may be anothers' burden, and usually it is.

The founders clearly understood this. They saw a straight line into the future drawn from the onerous actions of the unlimited government they had just thrown off. The government they wanted would have no choice but to allow people to go on with their lives without undue interference. It's only reason for being was to do for the whole what the parts could not do.

A deep study of US History, letters and recollections of the founders and the Constitution itself will leave no one in doubt that things like, for example, the health care mandate are beyond the central government's power. It is just the kind of interference in people's lives the founders wanted to prevent.

Where did they fail? They enumerated the powers of the central government. They reserved all other powers to the states. They allowed regulation of interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce. etc etc.
They didn't fail. The courts have since failed them essentially arguing that the Constitution is a living document that can adapt to changing times. They are right about the living part; wrong about the adapting. They're as good a saying the principle of limited government is antiquated, which is nonsense because the principle is forever true.



i don't understand this belief that the US is destined to fall into the gutter on the progressive politics of today. the US left was far, far more left a mere 40-60 years ago, had a far firmer hold of the government-- and we were in the middle of pax americana.

I don't know a good way of illustrating why progressivism would break us in the long run. Progressives are always looking for ways to correct social problems. They push programs without much regard to fiscal impact. That's not your Third Way, is it? We fall into the gutter when the number of social programs exceeds our ability to pay for them. Maybe that will never happen, but meanwhile they keep adding programs. It's like putting rocks in a rowboat. Which one finally tips the boat over? No one knows, but you can see the boat sinking lower and lower.

astralis
09 Jun 10,, 02:42
dale,


Laughable.

People on the bottom rung of society would be just as dead or enslaved as people on the top if we did not have a military.

-dale

certainly, but it's not the black and white choice that you're presenting, either. ultimately states need to make a decision on whether or not putting that extra $1 into the defense budget hurts the state more, or less. as with all things, it's an economic decision involving choices.

the USSR could never find that the answer could SOMETIMES be "less", and thus bankrupted themselves in an arms competition with the US.

and if the economy tanks as a result of overinvestment in the military, it's the lower rungs that get hit by the economic effects first. we saw this with the UK post-WW2, USSR post-Cold War.

Gun Grape
09 Jun 10,, 02:44
Racism, like any other form of prejudice is most often nothing more that a good excuse for your personal failures.

I could rattle off statistics about how being left handed people do worse than others when it comes to XXX. Or people with glasses, or red heads or, name any that apply. I can find an excuse for anything. Just tell me what you look like and where you are from.

Is there racial discrimination? yes Is it so minuscule today that it mostly used more as an excuse than an actual fact of life? Yes.




1. At the state level equalized school funding per student. Codify the right of black students to get as much money as for their education as whites at a minimum.

Why? Is the dark secret that I don't know the one about the school funding the black kids in my sons class less than they do him?

Integration. Where I live we don't have "Black Schools"

Funding is based in my state on population. The school system gets X dollars per student. Period. White kids don't get the school more money.

Maybe if we got parents involved in their childs education we would see better grades. Maybe if we emphasized education vice sports, our kids would study more


2. Require specific medical diagnosis to put a kid in special ed

Thats a no brainer. But its also how it is done in the states that I have lived in Whom in your state decides who goes into special ed?



4. Revamp welfare to encourage a wage earning male to be present. Minimum wage won't add much, but every little bit helps and more importantly it puts dad back in the home. 2 wage earners would be even better. The accumulation of wealth is critical. Just having a reliable car opens up better job opportunities. Instead of free money and rent- make it profitable to work. Remove rent supports and free money. Instead help employers pay a better wage and offer child care. To get assistance they have to work.

Its my job to offers workers a means to earn money. I'm not a day care, nor am I going to pay more because you have kids. Those are problems you made. Don't expect me to fix them for you.

If I raise my cost to make my product so I can take care of your youngins I have to charge more. And the same goes for my suppliers. Which means that buying stuff cost more. So we are back to square 1.



If you have to, have make work programs- repairing parks, helping the elderly, filling pot holes, painting over graffitti etc. Give dad something to do and pride in his community. Dad is the one who transmits most of the values to the next generation.

I'm betting those city /county maintenance workers might be a little pissed off that you want to take their job away. And they usually have strong unions.


6. Give black students credit for what they do know. African American Vernacular English is a real language. Black's are often bi-lingual and don't know it or get credit for it.

Really? Where can I go where they speak this language in the business world? I speak pig latin. Can I claim that as one of my "Foreign languages?


American Standard English training needs to be increased at the same time. We do intensive supports for foreign born students, but blacks often need it just as much since they come to college speaking and writing in a tongue that is not ASE

Then the thing to do is get rid of the notion that "Black English" is a real language. Foreign students get intensive support because english is not their native tongue. Black Americans grew up immersed in ASE. Fault the kid, fault the parent, and blame the people that want to coddle them and telling them that getto slang is on an equal standing as any traditional language.

I know how to speak like a pissed off Gunnery Sergeant. But I know that if I wish to get ahead in life, I shouldn't use that "Foreign Language" during a job interview nor at work. Do you think that blacks cannot make the same connection?

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 02:56
the purpose of the tax might not be to create an economic effect on a specific portion of the population, but the defacto effect would be.Only due to the way it's applied. See my gas tax example.

that's why economists say that all taxes distort the economy in some way or form; the effect just needs to be balanced against societal need.Market distortion isn't the same thing as redistribution of wealth. There are direct effects and indirect effects of all taxes, what defines them is the purpose for which they are levied.

i accept the fact that punitive taxation has a different role from what you call a "benefit tax", and in fact i actually recognize that this has benefits now and then. obviously i understand this is MORE redistributive; that's their purpose.Benefit tax isn't a term coined by me. It's used in all Econ texts, you can go back to Adam Smith and read his thoughts on it. No doubt there were people before him that discussed taxation in those terms.

however, all taxes, either by purpose or not, are still inherently redistributive; the question is by how much and whom gets primarily affected.Not inherently redistributive. A gas tax that is used to pay for roads, by the users of those roads, has no direct redistibutive nature. There are indirect benefits to non-users in that they may get goods to market cheaper, etc. But it's not a tax levied to acheive a targeted economic effect for a defined portion of the population, thus it's not a redistribution or transfer tax.

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 02:59
dale,



certainly, but it's not the black and white choice that you're presenting, either. ultimately states need to make a decision on whether or not putting that extra $1 into the defense budget hurts the state more, or less. as with all things, it's an economic decision involving choices.

the USSR could never find that the answer could SOMETIMES be "less", and thus bankrupted themselves in an arms competition with the US.

and if the economy tanks as a result of overinvestment in the military, it's the lower rungs that get hit by the economic effects first. we saw this with the UK post-WW2, USSR post-Cold War.

You're spiraling. Yes, economic policies have far-reaching effects, but that doesn't change the fact that military spending, in general, benefits every citizen equally and that is why it's not a redistributive tax.

-dale

JAD_333
09 Jun 10,, 03:10
You give politicians in both parties far too much credit first off because they want unlimited government so nothing checks their power.

Quite a cocktail of different ideas rolled into one. Politicians want, rather need power to operate. No surprise there. Unlimited government offers politicians no more power than does limited government. Both concept apply to the latitude the three branches of the Federal government have in interpreting the Constitution. As for checking the power of politicians, ask Tom Delay if it can be done.


Ultimately that's up to the voters and they'll vote according to what they see. If we create a society that is a pseudo-aristocracy where the rich people are born rich, the poor people are born poor, they both die that way, and since the poor will always have more members, they'll vote for an unlimited government.

Quite right, but that doesn't mean the guy they vote for, who promised them the moon, can deliver. He might run right smack into a Constitutional block.
Checks and balances go for voters to. You can elect the guy, but you can' elect the social program.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 03:11
Astralis- simple question. If the founders believed as you do, that the purpose of government was to redistribute wealth, why did they write in the apportionment clause?

Gun Grape
09 Jun 10,, 03:12
oops I was wrong, its 27 billion with another 25 billion to come and 110 million an air frame. USMC officers have gone to jail for lying about the aircraft. It can't enter hostile air-space, can't auto-rotate.....

Bull Crap. Are you channeling Carlton Meyers(G2Mil) and Mike Sparks?

Its being used, and has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan by both the USMC and the USAF. I don't think either the Corps or the AF Special Ops Command are hiding them from The closest thing we have to a war zone at the moment.

No Marine Officer went to jail for lying about the aircraft. A Maint Squadron Commander was relieved of duty for falsifying reports.

Doesn't autorotate in a dual engine failure. True. Helos autorotate. MV-22s, being a hybrid do glide land in such a case where a helo would use autorotation. That big thick wing allows it to glide as slow as 40Kts. And it doesn't have to full rotate the wing, from hovering mode to do it either.

110Mil cost per plane? Thats just crazy and not true. Current Program cost is somewhere around 70Mil per plane. It gets cheaper the more we make. The AF version cost a bit more because of all the bells and whistles.

But lets not hijack this thread . Belongs over in the mil aviation.

astralis
09 Jun 10,, 03:13
JAD,


But the Third Way doesn't change the big brother relationship between the central government and the private sector that has grown up since the country was founded. There is nothing in it to correct growing government interference in our lives. Laissez-faire, it is not.

certainly it's not laissez-faire; the Third Way rejects that philosophy as equally as it rejects socialism.

to the Third Way, laissez-faire ultimately means centralization under corporate monopolies (which we see both in economic theory AND in real life-- the gilded age). in its extreme, corporatism, where companies gradually exceed the power of the state and take it over.

socialism ultimately means centralization under a government bureaucracy.

to the Third Way, both results are -bad-. thus the underlying philosophy behind the Third Way is decentralization, which i would argue gives greater individual freedom than either the conservative or liberal ideological poles.

i'd also note the methods by which the third way prefers to do things (ie government support for private initiative) is qualitatively different from the way progressivism does things (government-led action). also, the inherent, "resting" state of the third way is that for most things, the private sector DOES do it better, and has no need for government involvement.


They're as good a saying the principle of limited government is antiquated, which is nonsense because the principle is forever true.

sure, but that's not what the Third Way advocates. conservatives (and the more conservative you get, the more this is true) see ALL governance as an evil-- with the caveat that the governance espoused by the Constitution is recognized as a necessary evil.

the Third Way believe in limited government, as well, but believe that the powers allotted to the Federal government by the Constitution are inherently good.


I don't know a good way of illustrating why progressivism would break us in the long run. Progressives are always looking for ways to correct social problems. They push programs without much regard to fiscal impact. That's not your Third Way, is it?

i agree, the fiscal impact will be huge. as a Third Wayer i can understand that.

the conservative argument runs deeper, though; it argues that government inherently saps the will of the people. that efficient government programs are to be as feared as inefficient ones, because the first takes away what individuals should be doing while the second "just" wastes money.

that's the basis for dale and highsea's fear that we'll all fall into a totalitarian society in the future, not your rather more pragmatic fear that we'll run out of money.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 03:29
...that's the basis for dale and highsea's fear that we'll all fall into a totalitarian society in the future, not your rather more pragmatic fear that we'll run out of money.Can't speak for dale, but I would say the path we're on leads to anarchy and civil war rather than totalitarism.

I would add two things- first, your comment alone demonstrates a shallow thinking. You have a tendency to express everything in extremes. I doubt dale believes we'll fall into totalitarianism any more than I do.

Second- When I say the path we're on, I mean if unchecked. So don't twist it into "highsea thinks we are heading for civil war". I don't believe that, because I believe that the american people have more sense than to continue the path we're on.

If you think I have ignored the fiscal path we're on, or that it doesn't concern me, then you haven't read a single thing I've posted in the last year.

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 03:45
Can't speak for dale, but I would say the path we're on leads to anarchy and civil war rather than totalitarism.

Right. We'll hang and shoot a bunch of pols before we'll allow for totalitarianism. Can always find new pols if we need 'em.

-dale

JAD_333
09 Jun 10,, 03:55
JAD,

to the Third Way, laissez-faire ultimately means centralization under corporate monopolies (which we see both in economic theory AND in real life-- the gilded age). in its extreme, corporatism, where companies gradually exceed the power of the state and take it over.

Si tu parle francais, laissez faire means leave alone. I meant it as it applies to government interference in my life.

Yes; in economics it means let business do its thing. I don't buy that it would end up with corporations taking over the country. They didn't manage it when laissez faire was at its height in the 19th century and into the 20th. Why not? Two reasons: Because corporations WANT an independent legal system to do protect their business which only government can provide. And the power to tax is the power to destroy, or to cut down to size, which is what we done through corporate taxes.

BTW, Mussolini was a Third Wayer...:tongue:



i'd also note the methods by which the third way prefers to do things (ie government support for private initiative) is qualitatively different from the way progressivism does things (government-led action).


sure, but that's not what the Third Way advocates. conservatives (and the more conservative you get, the more this is true) see ALL governance as an evil-- with the caveat that the governance espoused by the Constitution is recognized as a necessary evil.

the Third Way believe in limited government, as well, but believe that the powers allotted to the Federal government by the Constitution are inherently good.



i agree, the fiscal impact will be huge. as a Third Wayer i can understand that.

the conservative argument runs deeper, though; it argues that government inherently saps the will of the people. that efficient government programs are to be as feared as inefficient ones, because the first takes away what individuals should be doing while the second "just" wastes money.

that's the basis for dale and highsea's fear that we'll all fall into a totalitarian society in the future, not your rather more pragmatic fear that we'll run out of money.

Sounds to me like a Third Wayer is a conservative hiding in sheep's clothing.:))

astralis
09 Jun 10,, 04:08
highsea,

okay, i see the disconnect.

once again, it's definition. you're looking at it from the marxist definition, ie the use of a tax as a punitive/"equalizing" measure between classes. i'm looking at it from a stricter econ perspective, where individual money goes to the state to do as it sees fit. perhaps not "redistribution", but simply "distribution".

try putting my definition into what i've argued thus far.


astralis- simple question. If the founders believed as you do, that the purpose of government was to redistribute wealth, why did they write in the apportionment clause?

you're mixing up my words. i said the ESSENCE of government is wealth redistribution, not the purpose. wealth redistribution, ie tax, (again, my definition) is the vehicle by which government gets its primary jobs done.

astralis
09 Jun 10,, 04:12
highsea,


Can't speak for dale, but I would say the path we're on leads to anarchy and civil war rather than totalitarism.

I would add two things- first, your comment alone demonstrates a shallow thinking. You have a tendency to express everything in extremes. I doubt dale believes we'll fall into totalitarianism any more than I do.

really now, so our current path will lead to anarchy and civil war as opposed to totalitarianism, and you say -i- express everything in extremes? :rolleyes:



Second- When I say the path we're on, I mean if unchecked. So don't twist it into "highsea thinks we are heading for civil war". I don't believe that, because I believe that the american people have more sense than to continue the path we're on.

this is what you said:


The only option is to oppose big government at every possible turn, and roll it back at every possible opportunity. Even that won't do it, but it may delay the inevitable by a few decades.

that's different from the opinion you just said above.

astralis
09 Jun 10,, 04:16
JAD,


They didn't manage it when laissez faire was at its height in the 19th century and into the 20th. Why not? Two reasons: Because corporations WANT an independent legal system to do protect their business which only government can provide.

those corporations didn't have the power of communication and the money that multinationals have access to today. if we were to repeat the gilded age policies today i have little doubt that we'd devolve into corporatism within several generations.

re: independent legal system, the corporations back then routinely bribed judges to make sure things went their way...


And the power to tax is the power to destroy, or to cut down to size, which is what we done through corporate taxes.

right, and those and other protections against corporatism arose during the Progressive Era :biggrin: led by no less than TR.


Sounds to me like a Third Wayer is a conservative hiding in sheep's clothing

that's what the libs say. and if it were true, then i shouldn't be getting half as much flak as i do from WAB's peanut gallery :biggrin:

JAD_333
09 Jun 10,, 04:25
Can't speak for dale, but I would say the path we're on leads to anarchy and civil war rather than totalitarism.

HS:

That's interesting because it's true. We're always on that path, sometimes coming closer to disaster, sometimes moving away from it. The day is usually saved because we manage to move right or left just enough to satisfy all parties.

But not always.

The path once led us to civil war. That was the one time in our history when the parties became locked over an issue on which neither would compromise.

We'll be ok as long as we can keep the pendulum swinging.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 04:32
<snip>

that's different from the opinion you just said above.The inevitable I was referring to was bankrupting the nation.

See how you jump to conclusions?

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 04:34
Racism, like any other form of prejudice is most often nothing more that a good excuse for your personal failures.

I could rattle off statistics about how being left handed people do worse than others when it comes to XXX. Or people with glasses, or red heads or, name any that apply. I can find an excuse for anything. Just tell me what you look like and where you are from.

Is there racial discrimination? yes Is it so minuscule today that it mostly used more as an excuse than an actual fact of life? Yes.

Wrong, and the evidence proves it. From arrest rates, white bias, who gets what funding, where states devote development dollars the list is nearly endless. We've moved Jim Crow into the shadows, but its alive and well. I can't make you admit it, but we have 2 choices. Either spend a lot of money now to fix it, or spend a lot more money over the long term to give them welfare and let them pad the Democrats vote blocks so the liberals can move us ever closer to socialism.


Why? Is the dark secret that I don't know the one about the school funding the black kids in my sons class less than they do him?

Integration. Where I live we don't have "Black Schools"

Yes you do, Miami Dade is one of the worst, although its mostly Hispanic and black vs mostly black.

Schools are principally funded via property taxes. Whites own more and better property so white majority area can fund better schools. This is a major factor in the failure of black students because money drives the ability to offer rewarding education, hire worthwhile educators etc. The failure of black students via a lack of funding early comes back to bite us in the ass later with increased welfare and legal system spending.


Funding is based in my state on population. The school system gets X dollars per student. Period. White kids don't get the school more money.

Only for that portion of the money that comes from the state, not local revenues. Even then, redirection of funds away from the bulk of the students into white dominated AP/GT classes equals white kids getting more money. BTW, non-whites are much less likely to be invited into an AP program even if their grades are good enough.


Maybe if we got parents involved in their childs education we would see better grades. Maybe if we emphasized education vice sports, our kids would study more

Hence my calls to begin reforms designed tog et dad back in the home.


Thats a no brainer. But its also how it is done in the states that I have lived in Whom in your state decides who goes into special ed?

School officials make the call, not doctors. Research the issue please.


Its my job to offers workers a means to earn money. I'm not a day care, nor am I going to pay more because you have kids. Those are problems you made. Don't expect me to fix them for you.

If I raise my cost to make my product so I can take care of your youngins I have to charge more. And the same goes for my suppliers. Which means that buying stuff cost more. So we are back to square 1.

But if I cut your taxes, your costs go down. If your taxes get cut dollar per dollar paid above a certain level then your going to try and get your taxes to zero because it makes sense to pay more and keep the money local and employees happy. Overall taxes revenue won't go down, the burden of who pays simply gets shifted. Your workers earning more will pay more in income taxes and consumption taxes.


I'm betting those city /county maintenance workers might be a little pissed off that you want to take their job away. And they usually have strong unions.

I used to drive long haul trucking, I've seen almost every inch of America. There are enough public goods jobs needing to be done they won't get fired. As for their unions, the ability of public sector employees to use collective bargaining should be made illegal.


Really? Where can I go where they speak this language in the business world? I speak pig latin. Can I claim that as one of my "Foreign languages?

AAVE is a real language with fixed rules for its grammar and a long history. Making fun of it won't make the problem it poses go away.


Then the thing to do is get rid of the notion that "Black English" is a real language. Foreign students get intensive support because english is not their native tongue. Black Americans grew up immersed in ASE. Fault the kid, fault the parent, and blame the people that want to coddle them and telling them that getto slang is on an equal standing as any traditional language.

Its not slang, its a language with hard rules. Its descended from a blending of African tongues, English and Creole. It has speakers on two continents and shows very little variation across regions that you would expect to see if it was just a dialect of English.


I know how to speak like a pissed off Gunnery Sergeant. But I know that if I wish to get ahead in life, I shouldn't use that "Foreign Language" during a job interview nor at work. Do you think that blacks cannot make the same connection?

Most blacks can speak white, that is not the problem. The problem is writing and reading white. If you can't read (and comprehend the information) or write ( and convey the information) the language of business your not going to get ahead. Failing schools have not provided the proper English training black students need.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 04:36
...We'll be ok as long as we can keep the pendulum swinging.I agree, that's why I am so looking forward to November. :biggrin:

The reason totalitarianism is impossible is what dale said, and it's encapsulated in the second amendment. Americans won't stand for it.

I'm less optimistic about getting on a fiscally responsible course. I believe the only way for that to happen is a balanced budget amendment.

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 04:40
Failing schools have not provided the proper English training black students need.

Maybe their parents need to impress upon them the need to read and write proper English.

-dale

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 04:45
The founders clearly understood this. They saw a straight line into the future drawn from the onerous actions of the unlimited government they had just thrown off. The government they wanted would have no choice but to allow people to go on with their lives without undue interference. It's only reason for being was to do for the whole what the parts could not do.

A deep study of US History, letters and recollections of the founders and the Constitution itself will leave no one in doubt that things like, for example, the health care mandate are beyond the central government's power. It is just the kind of interference in people's lives the founders wanted to prevent.

Where did they fail? They enumerated the powers of the central government. They reserved all other powers to the states. They allowed regulation of interstate commerce, but not intrastate commerce. etc etc.
They didn't fail.

They failed with the slavery issue and by setting up a system that made corporations more powerful than people. They foresaw a slave owning most agrarian polis. Had we had the 14th amendment then, we would most likely not be in the pickle we are in now. Most of our countries problems stem from the lingering effects of slavery and the clash of labor and capitol. The tyranny of the states is at the root of the progressive movement.





I don't know a good way of illustrating why progressivism would break us in the long run. Progressives are always looking for ways to correct social problems. They push programs without much regard to fiscal impact. That's not your Third Way, is it? We fall into the gutter when the number of social programs exceeds our ability to pay for them. Maybe that will never happen, but meanwhile they keep adding programs. It's like putting rocks in a rowboat. Which one finally tips the boat over? No one knows, but you can see the boat sinking lower and lower.

Progressives don't really care about fixing social ills, they want to progressively move towards a more powerful government in general. To beat them means actually fixing the problems in a way that leaves them fixed and adds to the country as a whole by enriching the individualism that made us great.

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 04:47
Maybe their parents need to impress upon them the need to read and write proper English.

-dale


That would be useful knowledge, you know it, and I know, but I doubt their mom does, dad isn't there. Even if the need is impressed on them, they still need a teacher, not some tenured lifer just collecting a check.

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 04:50
I agree, that's why I am so looking forward to November. :biggrin:

The reason totalitarianism is impossible is what dale said, and it's encapsulated in the second amendment. Americans won't stand for it.

I'm less optimistic about getting on a fiscally responsible course. I believe the only way for that to happen is a balanced budget amendment.

More and more Americans will stand for it, because more and more Americans have no stake in it. As people make money, they become more conservative fiscally. They want less from you, and want even less to give to you via taxes. We need to increase the number of people who have something to lose by our failure.

astralis
09 Jun 10,, 04:53
highsea,


The inevitable I was referring to was bankrupting the nation.

See how you jump to conclusions?

considering that the question you answered was in response to JAD's question on whether or not it would be the ruin of the nation...i'd say that my jump to conclusion wasn't as far-fetched as all that. i'll retract it in light of your clarification, though.

in any case, seeing as how -i- think your analysis jumps to extremes and how you think my analysis jumps to extremes, how about we keep it at that instead of connecting it to a more personal charge of "shallow thinking"?

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 04:57
Progressives don't really care about fixing social ills, they want to progressively move towards a more powerful government in general. To beat them means actually fixing the problems in a way that leaves them fixed and adds to the country as a whole by enriching the individualism that made us great.But that's impossible. Social ills will always exist. For every one you fix, a new one will emerge to fill the vacuum.

I'll make an analogy to my shop- When I have a part to make, it might have 4 operations. If two of them take 30 minutes, one takes 45 minutes, and one takes an hour, I can never increase my throughput higher than one per hour. So I concentrate on the bottleneck. That's the hour-long operation.

So I work on that, and cut it down to 40 minutes. Now the bottleneck is the 45 minutes operation. So I work on that, etc. Every bottleneck I eliminate creates a new one.

Social ills are like that- you can't eliminate them, you can only change the ones you are working on.

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 04:57
That would be useful knowledge, you know it, and I know, but I doubt their mom does, dad isn't there. Even if the need is impressed on them, they still need a teacher, not some tenured lifer just collecting a check.

Maybe mom oughtta find a new dad then. Or learn on her own.

-dale

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 04:59
..in any case, seeing as how -i- think your analysis jumps to extremes and how you think my analysis jumps to extremes, how about we keep it at that instead of connecting it to a more personal charge of "shallow thinking"?Okay by me. I figure we can keep tossing barbs at each other, or we can continue the discussion.

So how about an answer to my question- why did the founders write in the apportionment clause?

edit to clarify: I'm not asking about the power to tax so the gov't can operate, but the restriction on taxation imposed by the apportionment clause.

JAD_333
09 Jun 10,, 05:01
JAD,

those corporations didn't have the power of communication and the money that multinationals have access to today.

Asty:

It's not like the government is still using telegraph and quills. When corporations stop lobbying congress and spending millions to smooze the media, I'll start worrying. Until then there isn't a corporation in this country that government can't cut off at the knees if it steps too far out of line, money notwithstanding.




if we were to repeat the gilded age policies today i have little doubt that we'd devolve into corporatism within several generations.


Couldn't do it then and can't do it now. That is unless fascists take over and make it happen.



re: independent legal system, the corporations back then routinely bribed judges to make sure things went their way...

Not as much as you might think. Case law going back to those times says otherwise.


right, and those and other protections against corporatism arose during the Progressive Era :biggrin: led by no less than TR.

Trust busting is not anti-corporation. It spurred competition. TR was progressive mostly in the area of defense, foreign relations, anti monopoly, and preservation of natural resources. His cute little health care plan, which Obama likes to cite, was a progressive answer to the appalling state of medicine during his time. If he was in Obama's shoes would he have proposed a national health care system. I doubt it.




that's what the libs say. and if it were true, then i shouldn't be getting half as much flak as i do from WAB's peanut gallery :biggrin:

You always seem to make it back to the airstrip. :)

JAD_333
09 Jun 10,, 05:15
I'm less optimistic about getting on a fiscally responsible course. I believe the only way for that to happen is a balanced budget amendment.

HS

I am more optimistic that we'll get a legislated balanced budget down the road. But an amendment is risky, unless it has enough escape hatches in case of a national emergency.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 05:22
...But an amendment is risky, unless it has enough escape hatches in case of a national emergency.I know, which is why I have always opposed the idea in the past.

Problem is, anything can be an emergency. They passed paygo last december at the same time they increased the debt limit. And every single spending bill since has been declared exempt due to the "emergency".

JAD_333
09 Jun 10,, 05:38
They failed with the slavery issue...

It was indeed a moral failure; the right thing would have been to refuse to recognize slavery in which case there would be no United States of America. The one saving grace is that most people back then, even slaveholders didn't expect slavery to continue long.




...and by setting up a system that made corporations more powerful than people.

The Constitution did not create corporations. Corporations are state created entities. They became what they are today back in the mid-1800s because the only way to get people to invest in canal projects and such was to indemnify them from the debts of the company. To do that states enacted laws that allowed stock companies to enjoy the same rights as a living person in terms of property, but there were limits. Corporations cannot vote, apply for welfare, etc.




Had we had the 14th amendment then, we would most likely not be in the pickle we are in now.

Moot point. There would have been no such amendment because there would have been no Constitution because of it.



Most of our countries problems stem from the lingering effects of slavery and the clash of labor and capitol.

It has been a terrible burden, all the consequences of it. Attitudes, of course, were different back then. There was less guilt over such things because people were taught differently then. Mass media, photography and better education brought us out of it.



The tyranny of the states is at the root of the progressive movement.

Don't get it.



Progressives don't really care about fixing social ills, they want to progressively move towards a more powerful government in general. To beat them means actually fixing the problems in a way that leaves them fixed and adds to the country as a whole by enriching the individualism that made us great.

Some don't care; most do. That doesn't make them right. Of course they want a more powerful government. Otherwise they can't succeed. They're putting the country in jeopardy with their lack of fiscal responsibility. Sooner they are voted out the better. Amen on individualism.

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 06:12
Don't get it.

Progressivism finds its calling in wreckage caused by the conflicts of race and labor. It is built on earlier movements such as the Grangers who tried to fight the unfair practices of the railroads and lost. If capitol had taken a longer view we might have avoided the gilded age and all the labor problems that came with it. Likewise if the Court had ruled differently in the slaughterhouse cases and sided with people over corporations we could have begun the process of incorporation earlier and stopped Jim Crow in its tracks. Instead the state governments dominated by business or land owners had a government for them alone and no one else. The brutality of state government is the root cause of the progressive movement. Strike breaking, calling out the national guard to force people to work, Jim Crow, denial of counsel, police brutality, forced confessions, biased juries, trusts, monopolies, dirty water, sewage in the streets, tenaments/tenament fires, pitting immigrants against citizens, wages to low to live on forcing kids to work to supplement the family income...... all things we recoil at, yet all common place until about a hundred years ago in all cases and even closer to us in some. Because the states were not bound by the bill of rights, and because the parties absolutely controlled access to the ballots only the people with wealth were really citizens.

Our country managed to avoid dealing with it as long as we had a frontier. Once it was closed and there was no more free land and no more second chances the pot began to boil. Its no accident some of the worst riots happen begin after the frontier pressure relief valve closed. The country our founders left us was a collection of mini totalitarian states with classes of citizen. The lowest was the slave real or wage, Then the craftsmen or crofter who was urban. Then the small farmer and small merchants. Above them sat the landed aristocrats, slum lords, railroad barons, tycoons, bankers, big merchants and politicians.

The era from 1870-19-teens is called the gilded age for a reason. America was awash in money, but it was concentrated in very few hands. State governments worked to preserve this status quo and it gave birth to the progressive movement.

A couple of examples

Railroads were free to charge what ever rates they wanted for what ever reason. bankers would extend credit to merchants and farmers. Merchants would also extend it to farmers. farmers would plant their crops, harvest them and then owe the bank and merchants money. To do that, they needed to get the crop to market. But the railroads in cahoots with the merchants and bankers would raise rates during harvest time and demand payment up front. Farmers could not move to market, defaulted and lost their farms. The merchants/bankers would then ship the crop to market and make a tidy sum on top of the seized farm.

This killed family farming in the midwest and south. In the south this was covered up via lynchings. Fake stories of rape and murder inflamed poorly educated whites against blacks. It gave them a target for their rage and pitted them against their natural allies. In both the Midwest and South, private property ownership steeply declined.

In the north, wave after wave of immigrants were used to keep wages low. If labor tried to organize, capitol set the police and national guard on them. Basic worker safety was non-existent. if you died or became disable don the job- tough luck some poor sap fresh off the boat was ready to replace you. You would be locked into your work in some cases. This lock in resulted in the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist fire. 146 young women burned to death or suicided to escape the flames after they were locked in and a fire broke out.

The states let things like this happen and caused a great deal of social unrest. We only just avoided a socialist revolution and then a fascist one just 50 years apart.

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 06:16
Maybe mom oughtta find a new dad then.

She can't, if she does her babies go hungry because the system is structured to penalize a 2 parent set up.



Or learn on her own.

-dale

To learn first requires knowing you need to. Then it requires access to what you need to learn. Good luck with that in the urban ghetto or rural hamlet.

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 06:28
She can't, if she does her babies go hungry because the system is structured to penalize a 2 parent set up.

That's funny. My parents did okay. My sisters' families have done okay.



To learn first requires knowing you need to. Then it requires access to what you need to learn. Good luck with that in the urban ghetto or rural hamlet.

I didn't say it was easy.

-dale

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 06:36
That's funny. My parents did okay. My sisters' families have done okay.

were they unskilled urban ghetto dwellers and a minority?




I didn't say it was easy.

-dale

its virtually impossible.

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 07:37
were they unskilled urban ghetto dwellers and a minority?

Nope. But THEIR parents were.



its virtually impossible.

Waaaah wahhhh wahhh.

That said, one of my goals is to volunteer at a center that teaches reading skills. I can't imagine not being able to read and I'd like to help out in that way if I can.

-dale

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 08:03
Nope. But THEIR parents were.

How did they go from minority to non-minority?




Waaaah wahhhh wahhh.

You've got two options

1. The parent(s) know how important it is, have the access and resources needed and don't love their kids enough to do it

or

2. The parents don't know or don't have access to the resources they need.

Based on the rate of blacks attending college parents are stressing the need to get an education. Its the system that is failing in primary and secondary schools, in social supports to give the parents the tools they need to be effective, in mentoring etc. You can't ask someone to do something to know nothing about with tools they don't have access to.


That said, one of my goals is to volunteer at a center that teaches reading skills. I can't imagine not being able to read and I'd like to help out in that way if I can.

-dale

I work with college students who cannot grasp how to read and apply a rubric, develop a thesis question or structure an argument. Our country is wasting billions in Pell grants and other aid on students who were failed by local schools.

The problem needs to be viewed like a military problem. Identify it, find its weaknesses and target the approach to deliver the most effective response. Blaming the black community while doing nothing to ease the barriers is not going to fix anything.

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 08:17
How did they go from minority to non-minority?

My grandparents? They didn't, they just worked hard, didn't complain, and provided for their kids financially and morally.



You've got two options

1. The parent(s) know how important it is, have the access and resources needed and don't love their kids enough to do it

or

2. The parents don't know or don't have access to the resources they need.

That's fine. Someone has to make my tacos.



Based on the rate of blacks attending college parents are stressing the need to get an education. Its the system that is failing in primary and secondary schools, in social supports to give the parents the tools they need to be effective, in mentoring etc. You can't ask someone to do something to know nothing about with tools they don't have access to.

But I can ask that kids learn how to read and write in English. That's what we're talking about, right?



I work with college students who cannot grasp how to read and apply a rubric, develop a thesis question or structure an argument. Our country is wasting billions in Pell grants and other aid on students who were failed by local schools.

I'm talking basic reading and writing. If we made college truly race-neutral then maybe the next generation would get the message.



The problem needs to be viewed like a military problem. Identify it, find its weaknesses and target the approach to deliver the most effective response. Blaming the black community while doing nothing to ease the barriers is not going to fix anything.

What you call "barriers" I call "reality".

It's like the chick fencers that I met back when I fenced. Most chicks simply couldn't hold a candle to any guy, but the ones that were good were REALLY good. Carved me up like a Christmas turkey before I knew what was happening.

-dale

Genosaurer
09 Jun 10,, 09:00
Schools are principally funded via property taxes. Whites own more and better property so white majority area can fund better schools. This is a major factor in the failure of black students because money drives the ability to offer rewarding education, hire worthwhile educators etc. The failure of black students via a lack of funding early comes back to bite us in the ass later with increased welfare and legal system spending.

I'm not really sure how this claim can be accurate, given that (to take a single example) the city of Detroit spent around $13,500 per student (far above the then-national average of around $8,700) in 2005. (Detroit is listed as 12% white, according to 2000 Census - it's probably actually lower now, but in any event it's clearly not a white majority area).

To focus on this example, why is Detroit so far below the national average in all metrics (for example, a high school graduation rate just shy of 25% in 2003 when the national average was 85%)? I think we can say with some certainty that it's not due to lack of funding.

EDIT: Admittedly, this is generalizing from a single example, and I'm sure there are majority-black school districts somewhere in the country that spent less per student than the national average as well. But I think discussing funding is not looking at the root problem at work here, and simply increasing funding to an underperforming district has been demonstrated not to work.

astralis
09 Jun 10,, 13:26
highsea,


So how about an answer to my question- why did the founders write in the apportionment clause?

edit to clarify: I'm not asking about the power to tax so the gov't can operate, but the restriction on taxation imposed by the apportionment clause.

the point is sort of moot with my post above. accordingly, i don't believe the founders were interested in taxing TO redistribute wealth between classes (a late 19th century idea, anyway).

in any case, what the founders instituted is no longer the case following the various supreme court rulings on the 16th amendment.

astralis
09 Jun 10,, 13:36
zraver,


As people make money, they become more conservative fiscally.

most psychological studies show a curve. for most people, once you hit a certain point you become quite liberal fiscally, because the ease by which you accumulate wealth once you already have it makes the relative cost trivial.

that's why there's the "limousine liberal" phenomenom.

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 13:41
I'm not really sure how this claim can be accurate, given that (to take a single example) the city of Detroit spent around $13,500 per student (far above the then-national average of around $8,700) in 2005. (Detroit is listed as 12% white, according to 2000 Census - it's probably actually lower now, but in any event it's clearly not a white majority area).

To focus on this example, why is Detroit so far below the national average in all metrics (for example, a high school graduation rate just shy of 25% in 2003 when the national average was 85%)? I think we can say with some certainty that it's not due to lack of funding.

EDIT: Admittedly, this is generalizing from a single example, and I'm sure there are majority-black school districts somewhere in the country that spent less per student than the national average as well. But I think discussing funding is not looking at the root problem at work here, and simply increasing funding to an underperforming district has been demonstrated not to work.

Detroit has other problems. Schools that are too big-mega schools hurt minority performance. overpaid teacher and administrators shielded by a powerful union. A teachers median wage is 52K a year in Detroit and Bobb, an administrator makes 260K a year. These figures are roughly 10,000 and 180,000 more than the national average respectively. Yet if you look at the AP courses and special ed programs you still see the same problems. Other big urban districts face much the same problems. Obviously more alone isn't a solution, how it is spent is. A powerful teachers union among other things has blocked real reform.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 17:14
you're mixing up my words. i said the ESSENCE of government is wealth redistribution, not the purpose. wealth redistribution, ie tax, (again, my definition) is the vehicle by which government gets its primary jobs done.Well, I have some apple fritters for you. :biggrin:

the point is sort of moot with my post above. accordingly, i don't believe the founders were interested in taxing TO redistribute wealth between classes.THAT'S what I wanted to see if you understood. The founders were completely aware of the gov't's ability to take from one party and give to another, or use the taxing power to favor one group over another. They wanted no part of that, and specifically outlawed the practice. Not only as it applied to individuals, but as it applied to the states.

in any case, what the founders instituted is no longer the case following the various supreme court rulings on the 16th amendment.Oh, I agree. The income tax has made redistribution of wealth not only possible, but from the persepective of the gov't, desirable. This is the major reason the federal gov't has strayed from the path laid out in the Constitution.

As I have said many times, it's the income tax that is the enabler for the gov't to conduct social engineering.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 17:18
...A teachers median wage is 52K a year in Detroit and Bobb, an administrator makes 260K a year. These figures are roughly 10,000 and 180,000 more than the national average respectively.I don't know about administrators, but I looked up the average teacher salary a couple weeks ago, and 52K is dead center of the national average. It's also the average for State employees in general, and it's right at median for private sector on the whole. Now, their benefits are higher, but base salary is in line.

Some areas are a lot higher (like D.C.), and some rural areas are a lot lower.

gunnut
09 Jun 10,, 18:04
The average salary of a teacher in Orange County is $72k a year.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 18:52
^^^ not bad, especially when you consider that they are getting another probably ~30 cents in benefits for every salary dollar they get. Plus 3 months a year off....

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 18:54
This site says Michigan average is 58K a year, plus another .37 in benefits.

Teacher Salary - Research and Compare each State. (http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/index.html)

Roosveltrepub
09 Jun 10,, 19:10
The average salary of a teacher in Orange County is $72k a year.
Any idea where housing costs are compared to the Nation. A hig salary could be so they can live near where they teach.

astralis
09 Jun 10,, 19:15
gunnut,


The average salary of a teacher in Orange County is $72k a year.

as you should know, that's probably less than median for orange county :biggrin:

more seriously, from growing up in the OC i know that many of the teachers there work 11-12 hour days.

Roosveltrepub
09 Jun 10,, 19:21
This site says Michigan average is 58K a year, plus another .37 in benefits.

Teacher Salary - Research and Compare each State. (http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/index.html)

Don't the high salary states have higher percentages going on to 4 yr degrees?

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 19:26
Don't the high salary states have higher percentages going on to 4 yr degrees?I wouldn't know. I thought all teachers had to have 4 year degrees?

Most states pay more if they have a masters, my sister is a teacher and her masters netted her another 10K.

gunnut
09 Jun 10,, 19:35
Any idea where housing costs are compared to the Nation. A hig salary could be so they can live near where they teach.

Good point.



The median income for a household in the county was $61,899, and the median income for a family was $75,700 (these figures had risen to $71,601 and $81,260 respectively as of a 2007 estimate[13]). Males had a median income of $45,059 versus $34,026 for females. The per capita income for the county was $25,826. About 7.0% of families and 10.3% of the population were below the poverty line, including 13.2% of those under age 18 and 6.2% of those age 65 or over.


Orange County, California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_County,_California)

Guess the teachers make way more than the average "working class" people in Orange County.

gunnut
09 Jun 10,, 19:37
gunnut,

as you should know, that's probably less than median for orange county :biggrin:

more seriously, from growing up in the OC i know that many of the teachers there work 11-12 hour days.

And they get pension, 3 months off a year, plus all federal, state holidays, not bad at all.

I work 8 hours a day, no pension, 9 paid holidays a year, plus 10 days of vacation, and I make less than the average teacher in OC.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 19:44
Gee, I work 10-12 hours a day, 6-7 days a week, no holidays, no vacation, no pension. I pay more in taxes than a teacher in Michigan makes, and have less than that for myself at the end of the year. :(

Roosveltrepub
09 Jun 10,, 19:44
I never accept this argument (zraver's) either. It's never guns OR butter. It's always guns AND butter, and as much of each as we can borrow for.

-dale

No, I was talking about that ship not defense in general. It can't do nearly what the original contract called for. It's a bus that ferries people near combat operations not to combat operations. It has zero ability to avoid enemy fire.

gunnut
09 Jun 10,, 19:45
Gee, I work 10-12 hours a day, 6-7 days a week, no holidays, no vacation, no pension. I pay more in taxes than a teacher in Michigan makes, and have less than that for myself at the end of the year. :(

But you really enjoy your work so it's not like working at all. :))

Besides, millions on welfare depend on you.

Roosveltrepub
09 Jun 10,, 19:50
BS. Maybe another program but the Corps fought tooth and nail for the Osprey. Even after it was canceled (both times).

It wasn't forced on the military. The Corps forced Congress to fund it.

And a wise choice it was.

It's really a poor value. Any extra speed it has is cancelled by the need for troops to travel farther on the ground. Other transports can fly to a firefight or threat. In a few years actual helicopters will be flying as fast and it will be pretty much useless except for photo ops.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 20:00
But you really enjoy your work so it's not like working at all. :)) My boss is a di*k. :tongue:

I really do enjoy my work though. I have fringe benes, I can come and go as I please, I can make stuff for myself, and if it looks like I am going to make too much money I can buy a new truck or machine and expense them off. I don't want a big income right now, I'm in tax protest mode.

I wouldn't trade back to working for someone else, turned down a Boeing offer last year.

Besides, millions on welfare depend on you.Yeah, lol. They're going to be disappointed this year. :))

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 20:39
I don't know about administrators, but I looked up the average teacher salary a couple weeks ago, and 52K is dead center of the national average. It's also the average for State employees in general, and it's right at median for private sector on the whole. Now, their benefits are higher, but base salary is in line.

Some areas are a lot higher (like D.C.), and some rural areas are a lot lower.

In Arkansas the average wage is like 35K and we have a higher cost of living than Detroit. 35K in Arkansas is more like 41k in Detroit. 52K a year with such low cost of living is insane and I want to teach history.

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 21:02
In Arkansas the average wage is like 35K and we have a higher cost of living than Detroit. 35K in Arkansas is more like 41k in Detroit. 52K a year with such low cost of living is insane and I want to teach history.Don't know about cost of living in Arkansas. That site I linked is made by a teacher, the main point is to complain about how low teachers salaries are.

It says Arkansas teacher average is 42K plus 21.9% in benes, and median household income is 37K. It places AR 6th from the top in salary as compared to median household income, which makes AR sound like a good place to be a teacher, but what do I know.

It also says teacher salary as compared to median house price, MI is at the bottom of the list, AR is 18th. I'd have to say that is probably BS, house prices in MI are in the toilet. Don't know about AR house prices.

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 21:19
Don't know about AR house prices.
3 bedroom single family home state wide average is 100K with Little Rock and Fayetville spiking to 145K.

I know the lady I bought my land from sold a 3000'sq 4 br custom built single story with basement, landscaped, 5 acres, remote garden shed and garden watering system in an exclusive neighborhood for $250k

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 21:23
No, I was talking about that ship not defense in general. It can't do nearly what the original contract called for. It's a bus that ferries people near combat operations not to combat operations. It has zero ability to avoid enemy fire.

Name me a troop transport that does.

-dale

highsea
09 Jun 10,, 21:24
Z- That sounds pretty cheap. I'm in Washington state, avg. asking price is 138K and median household income is 45K.

From what I have seen around me, cash talks.

dalem
09 Jun 10,, 21:26
In Arkansas the average wage is like 35K and we have a higher cost of living than Detroit. 35K in Arkansas is more like 41k in Detroit. 52K a year with such low cost of living is insane and I want to teach history.

Detroit proper comes with the added advantage of being incredibly dangerous.

And some of the suburbs of Detroit are super wealthy too, don't forget that.

-dale

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 22:10
Z- That sounds pretty cheap. I'm in Washington state, avg. asking price is 138K and median household income is 45K.

From what I have seen around me, cash talks.

I guess prices in Washington have gone into the toilet.... That is where I am from. I was paying more for a studio apartment with loud neighbors and no yard than I pay now for my 4br home.

Roosveltrepub
09 Jun 10,, 22:11
Name me a troop transport that does.

-dale

Actually, I think this is the first troop transport meant to ferry Men to a combat situation that can't go into combat. Other ships can take evasive action a ship that goes straight up and down well, it's a target. It can't make evasive manuevers on launch or landing. It's a bus.

zraver
09 Jun 10,, 22:14
Name me a troop transport that does.

-dale


Any conventional helo can skim over the trees and flare for a quick landing, the V-2 needs room for the transition. Also, gliding is about worthless without some place to set down. It just means a longer wait to a fiery death.

JAD_333
10 Jun 10,, 01:39
Progressivism finds its calling in wreckage caused by the conflicts of race and labor. It is built on earlier movements such as the Grangers who tried to fight the unfair practices of the railroads and lost. If capitol had taken a longer view we might have avoided the gilded age and all the labor problems that came with it. Likewise if the Court had ruled differently in the slaughterhouse cases and sided with people over corporations we could have begun the process of incorporation earlier and stopped Jim Crow in its tracks. Instead the state governments dominated by business or land owners had a government for them alone and no one else. The brutality of state government is the root cause of the progressive movement. Strike breaking, calling out the national guard to force people to work, Jim Crow, denial of counsel, police brutality, forced confessions, biased juries, trusts, monopolies, dirty water, sewage in the streets, tenaments/tenament fires, pitting immigrants against citizens, wages to low to live on forcing kids to work to supplement the family income...... all things we recoil at, yet all common place until about a hundred years ago in all cases and even closer to us in some. Because the states were not bound by the bill of rights, and because the parties absolutely controlled access to the ballots only the people with wealth were really citizens.

Our country managed to avoid dealing with it as long as we had a frontier. Once it was closed and there was no more free land and no more second chances the pot began to boil. Its no accident some of the worst riots happen begin after the frontier pressure relief valve closed. The country our founders left us was a collection of mini totalitarian states with classes of citizen. The lowest was the slave real or wage, Then the craftsmen or crofter who was urban. Then the small farmer and small merchants. Above them sat the landed aristocrats, slum lords, railroad barons, tycoons, bankers, big merchants and politicians.

The era from 1870-19-teens is called the gilded age for a reason. America was awash in money, but it was concentrated in very few hands. State governments worked to preserve this status quo and it gave birth to the progressive movement.

A couple of examples

Railroads were free to charge what ever rates they wanted for what ever reason. bankers would extend credit to merchants and farmers. Merchants would also extend it to farmers. farmers would plant their crops, harvest them and then owe the bank and merchants money. To do that, they needed to get the crop to market. But the railroads in cahoots with the merchants and bankers would raise rates during harvest time and demand payment up front. Farmers could not move to market, defaulted and lost their farms. The merchants/bankers would then ship the crop to market and make a tidy sum on top of the seized farm.

This killed family farming in the midwest and south. In the south this was covered up via lynchings. Fake stories of rape and murder inflamed poorly educated whites against blacks. It gave them a target for their rage and pitted them against their natural allies. In both the Midwest and South, private property ownership steeply declined.

In the north, wave after wave of immigrants were used to keep wages low. If labor tried to organize, capitol set the police and national guard on them. Basic worker safety was non-existent. if you died or became disable don the job- tough luck some poor sap fresh off the boat was ready to replace you. You would be locked into your work in some cases. This lock in resulted in the 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist fire. 146 young women burned to death or suicided to escape the flames after they were locked in and a fire broke out.

The states let things like this happen and caused a great deal of social unrest. We only just avoided a socialist revolution and then a fascist one just 50 years apart.

Much of what you say is true, but is not a true picture of the whole. There are positive aspects to our nation's growth intertwined with the dark sides you mentioned. For the most part, people got on and thrived. And the abuses you mentioned were not rampant. It did not benefit railroads to run farmers out of business; lynchings were worse in popular conception
that in the statistics: 4,300 people were lynched in the US between 1882 and 1968; 27% were white. No question that relative to population, the backs came out worse.

There is a distinct flavor to your way of looking at where we are today. You seem to believe that at all the sins of the past condemn the present generation. America did pass through a shameful period of slavery, but its conscience eventually prevailed. Today race relations are well on the road to healing. The past is important as a yardstick of how far we have come. Pretty far, IMO. I don't know of any country that has worked harder to overcome racial bias than the US.

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 03:58
Much of what you say is true, but is not a true picture of the whole. There are positive aspects to our nation's growth intertwined with the dark sides you mentioned. For the most part, people got on and thrived. And the abuses you mentioned were not rampant. It did not benefit railroads to run farmers out of business; lynchings were worse in popular conception

It was rampant and once the pressure releif of picking up and moving west was closed it began to boil. As or the railroads, they were not the only factor in play, they were in collusion. The emergence of the Granger movement and the drop in private property ownership are testament to that.


that in the statistics: 4,300 people were lynched in the US between 1882 and 1968; 27% were white. No question that relative to population, the backs came out worse.

And those lynchings kept poor whites in the dark and blacks in fear. They combined with Jim Crow to create a strangle hold on Southern politics that completely undid the progress made after the civil war


There is a distinct flavor to your way of looking at where we are today. You seem to believe that at all the sins of the past condemn the present generation. America did pass through a shameful period of slavery, but its conscience eventually prevailed. Today race relations are well on the road to healing. The past is important as a yardstick of how far we have come. Pretty far, IMO. I don't know of any country that has worked harder to overcome racial bias than the US.

Bias in society, failing students, grinding poverty- we still have a long-long way to go. Rather than continue to bandaid the problem, I want to set up the conditions to fix it.

Gun Grape
10 Jun 10,, 04:43
Any conventional helo can skim over the trees and flare for a quick landing, the V-2 needs room for the transition.

You have no idea what you are talking about. There is no need for extra room to transition. They can also fly at treetop level and drop into a tight LZ. Just faster than a regular helo.



Also, gliding is about worthless without some place to set down. It just means a longer wait to a fiery death.

Autorotating is worthless without someplace to set down. Same with a plane gliding with no place to set down.

Are these really your excuses on why it was a worthless program?


Actually, I think this is the first troop transport meant to ferry Men to a combat situation that can't go into combat.
What do you call what they are being used for by both USAF Special Ops Command and the USMC in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Not being a Mil Pro I can excuse you for channeling Carlton Meyers


Other ships can take evasive action a ship that goes straight up and down well, it's a target. It can't make evasive manuevers on launch or landing. It's a bus.


Other ships can take evasive action? The hell you say. Once a 46/53 or any other helo is committed to the landing they cannot take evasive action.

Its the best time to spring a counter helo ambush. The helo is stressed out with no place to go .

The advantage is that the V-22 can get in and out of the danger zone faster than a helo.


It's really a poor value. Any extra speed it has is cancelled by the need for troops to travel farther on the ground. Other transports can fly to a firefight or threat. In a few years actual helicopters will be flying as fast and it will be pretty much useless except for photo ops.

Once again V-22s are flying to the fight. But regardless of the mode of transport we try to land helos outside of the firefight. I've rode into a combat zone in both Ch-46s and Ch-53s. I rode V-22 years ago when the test squadron stood up at Lejeune. Before the accident on the west coast.

Given the choice. I want to go in the V-22 every day of the week. Marine friends of mine, that have rode both in combat zones share that opinion.


In a few years actual helicopters will be flying as fast and it will be pretty much useless except for photo ops.

Care to show me where you came up with that? Who figured out how to beat retreating blade stall? Helos have just about reached the end of their design limits.

The speed record for a helicopter is 249 MPH at sea level set by a modified Westland Lynx. That record has held for about 24 years

The MV-22 cruises at 277MPH at the same altitude. Max speed at that height is 290MPH

astralis
10 Jun 10,, 04:52
okay guys, this belongs in the military aviation forum...if you want to continue to debate this, please do that there.

JAD_333
10 Jun 10,, 05:01
It was rampant and once the pressure releif of picking up and moving west was closed it began to boil. As or the railroads, they were not the only factor in play, they were in collusion. The emergence of the Granger movement and the drop in private property ownership are testament to that.

It was one hell of an exciting time. On the positive side, the little guy did a pretty good job of pulling together to fight back. Another plus is they lived in a country where they were free to organize.


And those lynchings kept poor whites in the dark and blacks in fear. They combined with Jim Crow to create a strangle hold on Southern politics that completely undid the progress made after the civil war

Precisely.




Bias in society, failing students, grinding poverty- we still have a long-long way to go. Rather than continue to bandaid the problem, I want to set up the conditions to fix it.

I think we have the right conditions. I see a lot of progress, at least in my neck of the woods. Glass half-empty is also glass half-full.

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 05:30
It was one hell of an exciting time. On the positive side, the little guy did a pretty good job of pulling together to fight back. Another plus is they lived in a country where they were free to organize.

We were not free to organize, it wa snot until the pressures of WWI and then after some back sliding- WWII that organizing got effective. Prior to that and strikes could and did have the national guard called out on them to shoot, beat, bayonet the strikes and then force them back to work.



I think we have the right conditions. I see a lot of progress, at least in my neck of the woods. Glass half-empty is also glass half-full.

Liberals have set up a system that actively harms the root cause of success in America- family and community. No man is an island and even pour greatest individuals owe a debt to those who prepared them. Liberals sacrifice black lives to the Moloch of political power. I want to end that by ending the dependency via programs that repair families and build a stable generation that is well adjusted, self reliant and skilled.

Gun Grape
10 Jun 10,, 05:35
Wrong, and the evidence proves it. From arrest rates, white bias, who gets what funding, where states devote development dollars the list is nearly endless.

I use to be a EO advisor. Grad of DEOMC. I could show you stats to prove just about anything. Wage disparity between left and right handed people, Tall /Short, Male/Female or even Short overweight redhead woman with glasses verses Tall blonde with big b00bs.

In other words discrimination is everywhere. Its not hard to find, if thats the excuse you want to use for failure.




Schools are principally funded via property taxes. Whites own more and better property so white majority area can fund better schools.

Maybe in your state. Not in mine. Although property taxes are one of the funding sources its not the major one.





School officials make the call, not doctors. Research the issue please.


Once again you are making generalities that only apply where you live. It takes a Doctor to put someone in special ed where I live. School officials don't make the call.



AAVE is a real language with fixed rules for its grammar and a long history. Making fun of it won't make the problem it poses go away.



Its not slang, its a language with hard rules. Its descended from a blending of African tongues, English and Creole. It has speakers on two continents and shows very little variation across regions that you would expect to see if it was just a dialect of English.



Most blacks can speak white, that is not the problem. The problem is writing and reading white. If you can't read (and comprehend the information) or write ( and convey the information) the language of business your not going to get ahead. Failing schools have not provided the proper English training black students need.


Linguist will tell you that AAVE is not a separate language. Its an ASE dialect same as American Southern or Northwestern English.

"White" english, as you call it has been the business standard for a very long time. I wouldn't dare go for an interview and speak "Good ole boy American Southern English" nor would I write a resume using it. The black community knows that ASE is the way you have to speak to get ahead in life. They were taught it in school, along with the rest of us. If you havn't figured out that you need to know it, than no amount of money is going to help.




Based on the rate of blacks attending college parents are stressing the need to get an education. Its the system that is failing in primary and secondary schools, in social supports to give the parents the tools they need to be effective, in mentoring etc. You can't ask someone to do something to know nothing about with tools they don't have access to.

Excuses.

Walmart sells grade level books for english, spelling and math cheap. $2-3.
Less than a pack of smokes or a quart of beer.

We picked a few up for our son to work on during the summer. Not because the social support network told us we needed it. But because we want our son to be prepared when school starts after summer break.

And our son passed the 5th grade on the A & B honor roll. Would have been all As but he slipped up and got a B+ one grading period in writing.

This with a parent for whom English is a second language and a father that works 60-80 hrs a week.

Its not the system. Its parents. The best teachers in the world cannot force a child to learn if there isn't reinforcement back home.

Your blaming the system. "White/Asian/Hispanic child in the first row gets it but black child beside him doesn't because the system failed." sounds like the same stuff that Enablers tell alcoholics.

An alcoholic doesn't begin to fix the problem until he realizes he is the problem. The blame the system folks, regardless of race, are the same.

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 06:14
I

Maybe in your state. Not in mine. Although property taxes are one of the funding sources its not the major one.

Actually over 50% of Florida school funding comes from property taxes and the equalization is set at 90% resulting in poorer districts having a higher millage rate to generate the required local effort.

http://www.fldoe.org/fefp/pdf/fefpdist.pdf


Once again you are making generalities that only apply where you live. It takes a Doctor to put someone in special ed where I live. School officials don't make the call.

Again your wrong, a Licensed clinical social worker has the power in Florida.


Linguist will tell you that AAVE is not a separate language. Its an ASE dialect same as American Southern or Northwestern English.

From the center for applied linguistics

AAE is a systematic language variety, with patterns of pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, and usage that extend far beyond slang. Because it has a set of rules that is distinct from those of Standard American English, characterizations of the variety as bad English are incorrect; speakers of AAE do not fail to speak Standard American English, but succeed in speaking African American English with all its systematicity. Linguists are less concerned with whether or not AAE is a language or a dialect (terms that are more important socially and politically than linguistically) than with recognizing the systematic nature of AAE.


"White" english, as you call it has been the business standard for a very long time. I wouldn't dare go for an interview and speak "Good ole boy American Southern English" nor would I write a resume using it. The black community knows that ASE is the way you have to speak to get ahead in life. They were taught it in school, along with the rest of us. If you havn't figured out that you need to know it, than no amount of money is going to help.

You demonstrated why knowing is half the battle.




Excuses.

Walmart sells grade level books for english, spelling and math cheap. $2-3.
Less than a pack of smokes or a quart of beer.

nice racist attack there.

BTW, how many walmarts are near major urban ghettos?


We picked a few up for our son to work on during the summer. Not because the social support network told us we needed it. But because we want our son to be prepared when school starts after summer break.

And our son passed the 5th grade on the A & B honor roll. Would have been all As but he slipped up and got a B+ one grading period in writing.

This with a parent for whom English is a second language and a father that works 60-80 hrs a week.

Its not the system. Its parents. The best teachers in the world cannot force a child to learn if there isn't reinforcement back home.

Your blaming the system. "White/Asian/Hispanic child in the first row gets it but black child beside him doesn't because the system failed." sounds like the same stuff that Enablers tell alcoholics.

An alcoholic doesn't begin to fix the problem until he realizes he is the problem. The blame the system folks, regardless of race, are the same.

if the system is stacked against a productive home life, what results do you think your going to get?

dalem
10 Jun 10,, 06:53
if the system is stacked against a productive home life, what results do you think your going to get?

Stacked exactly how?

-dale

Gun Grape
10 Jun 10,, 11:31
nice racist attack there.

BTW, how many walmarts are near major urban ghettos?



Nice racist attack? Why because I smoke and drink beer. Or that I buy it from Walmart?

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 12:54
Stacked exactly how?

-dale

I've already detailed that, I even posted a couple of links you refused to read.

Gun Grape,


Nice racist attack? Why because I smoke and drink beer. Or that I buy it from Walmart?

The context of your comment was a clear in innuendo, that if the parents bought 1 less pack of smokes or 1 less quart of beer they could afford the learner books. In reality only about 1 in 4 blacks smoke, nearly the same rate as whites.

bigross86
10 Jun 10,, 13:17
I've been reading this thread for a couple days now, I feel like I need to chime in:

Zraver, from my personal experience, money has very little to do with it. I'll give you the best example I have, my life and the lives those surrounding me.

I'm one of 4 siblings. My parents got divorced when the oldest of us was 14, the youngest was 8. I was 14 at the time. My dad got away with a real crap divorce agreement, didn't pay alimony and barely paid child support. As a single mom my mother put all 4 kids through high schools that were smack in the middle of the scale. Not fancy or great high schools, but not dives, either. My older sister and I were already in high school during the (fairly nasty) divorce and didn't do that great. My younger brother finished as valedictorian and my youngest sister has one year left and is fairly near the top of her class.

On the other side, there is my aunt. She also got divorced, about 2 years before my mom did, when her kids were a bit younger. The difference is, my aunt is a dentist with her own clinic who makes a fair decent amount of money, and only has 2 kids. Plus, their dad paid a lot more then my dad did. Both her kids went to the best high school in the area. The older one graduated near the top of her class and is currently an officer in the army. The second one is a 17 year old kid who drinks beer at 9:00 am, smokes pot and will be lucky to graduate.

As you can see, the split is about 50-50 so far. When you look a few years later, 4-6 years after my sister and I graduated, my sister is now married to a lawyer and has 2 kids with a third on the way, and has a job that supports the family until my brother-in-law finished clerking with a NY judge. I've already managed my own franchise with two separate traveling sales teams and all that entails. My brother is now in an elite IDF field Intelligence unit.

It took some of us longer than others, but now the success rate (and by success rate I mean not being total losers) out of the six kids is now almost 85%. Only my cousin remains to be seen, and he might turn out to be ok in a couple years, too.

In both cases there are similarities, (the divorce, single parenthood) and differences (number of kids, socio-economic status of the parent). In both cases the drive of the one parent raising the kids is what pushed them to excel, though once again, for some of us it took longer. The money, however, had very little to do with the results. During the high school years the split between the family with more money and the family with less money was 1:1, the success rate was identical.

astralis
10 Jun 10,, 15:07
BR,


In both cases there are similarities, (the divorce, single parenthood) and differences (number of kids, socio-economic status of the parent). In both cases the drive of the one parent raising the kids is what pushed them to excel, though once again, for some of us it took longer. The money, however, had very little to do with the results. During the high school years the split between the family with more money and the family with less money was 1:1, the success rate was identical.


good anecdote but injecting statistics into this type of story is meaningless-- small sample size, for one.

i'd argue that money is just another factor in the general determination of a person's success. it doesn't guarantee outcomes, but it is quite important. almost (not quite) as important as drive.

we've seen over the years that despite increases in education, IQ spread remains roughly the same. there's been some rise on the lower side due to nutritional increases but it's undeniable there's a strong genetic factor involved.

money tends to mitigate the lower side, but very strongly increases the high side spread. ie rich dumb people will tend to still do well in life (pick your favorite empty-headed hollywood actress here), and if they have the benefit of a lavish education, can operate at a roughly average level.

however, if you are smart and have lots of money/education/drive, generally speaking you can do far, far more with far lower strain than if you are smart/driven but not well off.

it just makes sense; money at its base level is nothing but distilled work/energy. if you can leverage existing reserves of energy you don't need to use your own.

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 15:36
I've been reading this thread for a couple days now, I feel like I need to chime in:

Zraver, from my personal experience, money has very little to do with it.

as was pointed out money is distilled work money=resources.


I'm one of 4 siblings. My parents got divorced when the oldest of us was 14, the youngest was 8. I was 14 at the time. My dad got away with a real crap divorce agreement, didn't pay alimony and barely paid child support. As a single mom my mother put all 4 kids through high schools that were smack in the middle of the scale. Not fancy or great high schools, but not dives, either.

The but not dives either is an important caveat.




My older sister and I were already in high school during the (fairly nasty) divorce and didn't do that great. My younger brother finished as valedictorian and my youngest sister has one year left and is fairly near the top of her class.

So when subjected to severe pressure from social disruption (active divorce case) while also trying to deal with the pressures of high school you didn't do that great.... Now imagine with dealing with severe social disruption non-stop from an early age?


On the other side, there is my aunt. She also got divorced, about 2 years before my mom did, when her kids were a bit younger. The difference is, my aunt is a dentist with her own clinic who makes a fair decent amount of money, and only has 2 kids. Plus, their dad paid a lot more then my dad did. Both her kids went to the best high school in the area. The older one graduated near the top of her class and is currently an officer in the army.

money + drive= closest thing to a sure thing in life.


The second one is a 17 year old kid who drinks beer at 9:00 am, smokes pot and will be lucky to graduate.

spoiled


As you can see, the split is about 50-50 so far. When you look a few years later, 4-6 years after my sister and I graduated, my sister is now married to a lawyer and has 2 kids with a third on the way, and has a job that supports the family until my brother-in-law finished clerking with a NY judge.

How many black women have the looks to attract and keep a law student and then lawyer? Your family apparently has attractive genes to go with brains and drive. In the US standards beauty are white and even black kids have internalized this. Black= dark= criminal= evil is the message from our TV shows until recently. In studies black kids picked white dolls.


I've already managed my own franchise with two separate traveling sales teams and all that entails. My brother is now in an elite IDF field Intelligence unit.


Only my cousin remains to be seen, and he might turn out to be ok in a couple years, too.

Better chance of that if he gets cut off the tit and falls on his face hard. Ther eis a world of difference between enabling and constructive programs that encourage personal responsibility and provide the tools. Like your aunt supporting your cousin, or the state doling out welfare it acts as a hindrance to progress and liberty. Yet at the same time, no one looks sideways at parents who provide food for their kids, read to them, make them do chores and paddles their bottoms when they do wrong, rewards them when they do right.

A centrist approach to improving the lot of minorities needs to move away from a nanny system and to one that parents the parents so they can parent the kids. We need programs that encourage dad to be around, be involved and be contributing. An active caring dad is one of the biggest insulators against social disruption. Is it really worth cutting momas food stamps if Dad has a minimum wage job? If his earnings cause an offset loss then as has been proven, she will kick him out. The small amount of moeny an unskilled laborer can earn is not going to make anyone rich. But if it keeps him in the home-students do better.

I did an intake survey of remedial freshmen and honors freshman at UCA. The single biggest indicator of success was the 2 parent home for most of a kids childhood.

Continuing with that theme, we need legal reform so that the time fits the crime, not the race. Blacks are harassed by police, arrested from 3-16 times depending on location. They are often given prison terms for crimes that might get a white man jail. (prison= year and day+, Jail= up to a year). If dad is in prison he is not at home with his kids, and when he gets out he is an unemployable felon.

Legalize drugs- the government makes money and you break the power of the gangs. Drug Prohibition + nanny state has been a disaster for blacks in America.

Finally, although there are more issues- crush the teachers unions that seek tenure over student success.

bigross86
10 Jun 10,, 15:48
Astralis, I started off by saying that I can only draw examples from myself and those around me. I can give more examples from some of my best friends. But like you said, it still is a very small cross sampling.

I agree with your contention that having money will help someone make it better off, but I disagree that lack of money prevents the same. It may be racist of me or presumptuous to generalize on a whole segment of the population like this, but I do believe that if one puts in the effort they will reap the rewards.

The Chinese came to build the railroad and now Asians are stereotyped as being smarter than most at math and other subjects of the sort. The Irish fled to the US from famine with not much other than the clothes on their back and became the backbone of the Police Force and Fire brigade. Andrew Jackson, JFK and Ronald Reagen were all Irish American. During the 1930's and 1940's there was a large immigration of Jews from Europe to the US and what was then Palestine, in many cases again with very little to call their own. Today there are many Jewish lawyers, doctors, politicians and Nobel laureates, and the State of Israel has been standing for the last 62 years.

There are many other examples of "positive" stereotypes that refer to different segments of the population, all of them who started off with little or nothing to their name. How does the black population differ from the Asians, Irish or Jews, aside from the Jews not being around in the 1800's to work for little to no profit in the US?

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 16:05
During the 1930's and 1940's there was a large immigration of Jews from Europe to the US and what was then Palestine, in many cases again with very little to call their own. Today there are many Jewish lawyers, doctors, politicians and Nobel laureates, and the State of Israel has been standing for the last 62 years.

They Jews began the tradition of portable wealth, literacy and learning during the Neo-Babylonian Empire. They perfected it under Rome and Christendom, when your rights to own real property are limited and thus your doomed to be land poor, portable wealth and skill sets become important.


There are many other examples of "positive" stereotypes that refer to different segments of the population, all of them who started off with little or nothing to their name. How does the black population differ from the Asians, Irish or Jews, aside from the Jews not being around in the 1800's to work for little to no profit in the US?

Lynchings, Jim Crow, slavery, lack of any requirements for the states to fund schools for freedmen, were denied by law the right to learn to read, travel or hold certain jobs, welfare polices that had the direct result of breaking up the community, repression and harassment...... Basically it all adds up for a de-evolutionary path.

bigross86
10 Jun 10,, 16:07
So when subjected to severe pressure from social disruption (active divorce case) while also trying to deal with the pressures of high school you didn't do that great.... Now imagine with dealing with severe social disruption non-stop from an early age?

My brothers was in 7th grade when my folks got divorced, including about 4 years of an unhappy marriage before that. He went through the same things my sister and I did, and he graduated as valedictorian.


money + drive= closest thing to a sure thing in life.

I'll agree with you on that, but enough drive can be a replacement for money. Money is not a requisite for success.


spoiled

I agree with you there, and it's truly an unfortunate thing.


How many black women have the looks to attract and keep a law student and then lawyer? Your family apparently has attractive genes to go with brains and drive. In the US standards beauty are white and even black kids have internalized this. Black= dark= criminal= evil is the message from our TV shows until recently. In studies black kids picked white dolls.

I believe that love negates the need for physical beauty and attraction. Point in case, my sister and brother in law met and after 24 hours knew they were getting married. It took them 11 months to convince their families and get everything organized. I don't necessarily agree with their methods, but after 6 years and almost 3 kids, I think they're doing just fine.

Besides, if the majority of criminals are black, isn't it logical that blacks should be considered criminals? What one does with their life is eventually what defines them, i.e., drive. Society standards can get in the way and disrupt, but never impede one's will.


Better chance of that if he gets cut off the tit and falls on his face hard. Ther eis a world of difference between enabling and constructive programs that encourage personal responsibility and provide the tools. Like your aunt supporting your cousin, or the state doling out welfare it acts as a hindrance to progress and liberty. Yet at the same time, no one looks sideways at parents who provide food for their kids, read to them, make them do chores and paddles their bottoms when they do wrong, rewards them when they do right.

I agree with you, and my uncles have been trying to push my aunt to that as well. I hope that once he finishes high school she'll tell him to straighten up and fly right or she'll cut him off.


A centrist approach to improving the lot of minorities needs to move away from a nanny system and to one that parents the parents so they can parent the kids. We need programs that encourage dad to be around, be involved and be contributing. An active caring dad is one of the biggest insulators against social disruption. Is it really worth cutting momas food stamps if Dad has a minimum wage job? If his earnings cause an offset loss then as has been proven, she will kick him out. The small amount of moeny an unskilled laborer can earn is not going to make anyone rich. But if it keeps him in the home-students do better.

Again, a small cross section, but I gave you 6 kids who's fathers weren't around, and 5 of them ended up doing something good with themselves.


Continuing with that theme, we need legal reform so that the time fits the crime, not the race. Blacks are harassed by police, arrested from 3-16 times depending on location. They are often given prison terms for crimes that might get a white man jail. (prison= year and day+, Jail= up to a year). If dad is in prison he is not at home with his kids, and when he gets out he is an unemployable felon.


I don't quite agree with that. In a community that is 75% black, 75% of the crimes will be committed by blacks. Plus, the suspect fits the crime. If looking for an illegal immigrant, look for Hispanics that don't speak English properly. If looking for an SEC violation, look for stock brokers and bankers. If looking for someone who is dealing drugs or murdered someone in the ghetto, look for a black person. The suspect usually fits the crime, and the crime usually fits the suspect.


Legalize drugs- the government makes money and you break the power of the gangs. Drug Prohibition + nanny state has been a disaster for blacks in America.

I happen to agree with you on that one, at least when it comes to Marijuana, not so sure about the harder stuff.


Finally, although there are more issues- crush the teachers unions that seek tenure over student success.

Again, I agree. Many people I know that went into teaching see it more as a calling than just a job, but somewhere along the way that gets pushed to the sidelines

astralis
10 Jun 10,, 16:07
BR,


I agree with your contention that having money will help someone make it better off, but I disagree that lack of money prevents the same. It may be racist of me or presumptuous to generalize on a whole segment of the population like this, but I do believe that if one puts in the effort they will reap the rewards.

The Chinese came to build the railroad and now Asians are stereotyped as being smarter than most at math and other subjects of the sort. The Irish fled to the US from famine with not much other than the clothes on their back and became the backbone of the Police Force and Fire brigade. Andrew Jackson, JFK and Ronald Reagen were all Irish American. During the 1930's and 1940's there was a large immigration of Jews from Europe to the US and what was then Palestine, in many cases again with very little to call their own. Today there are many Jewish lawyers, doctors, politicians and Nobel laureates, and the State of Israel has been standing for the last 62 years.

There are many other examples of "positive" stereotypes that refer to different segments of the population, all of them who started off with little or nothing to their name. How does the black population differ from the Asians, Irish or Jews, aside from the Jews not being around in the 1800's to work for little to no profit in the US?


you are conflating a few issues. first, your original discussion centered around people whom pulled themselves up by their bootstraps over a certain period of their lives, which is different from the inter-generational struggle which you mentioned above.

second, regarding the jews or asians-- there is this insidious comparison, which i went over repeatedly with highsea earlier, between them as the "model minority" vs say, black people.

taking something i can speak to better from experience (and i see zraver discussed the jews), this doesn't take into account that the first generations of asian immigrants (1800s) were indeed dirt poor and highly discriminated against; the present-day generation are for the most part highly-educated in their former country, and middle class to begin with-- and had less discrimination to deal with publicly.

even today there's a noticeable income/social perception gap between the descendants of those first generation types (clustered in chinatown) and the present-day immigrants, clustered in wealthy suburbs.

meanwhile, black people, excepting the slow dribble of african immigrants to this country, are all the descendants of slaves. widespread job/education discrimination at every level meant for the most part, it was only in the 70s-80s we started to see relatively significant numbers of black people in higher education. trying to undo systemic racism and the more subtle informal racism is the work of generations. that doesn't mean there's not going to be individual blacks which succeed (obviously, looking at our prez) but it just means the going is a lot harder.

bigross86
10 Jun 10,, 16:17
They Jews began the tradition of portable wealth, literacy and learning during the Neo-Babylonian Empire. They perfected it under Rome and Christendom, when your rights to own real property are limited and thus your doomed to be land poor, portable wealth and skill sets become important.

And the Asians and the Irish?


Lynchings, Jim Crow, slavery, lack of any requirements for the states to fund schools for freedmen, were denied by law the right to learn to read, travel or hold certain jobs, welfare polices that had the direct result of breaking up the community, repression and harassment...... Basically it all adds up for a de-evolutionary path.

Most of those have not been around in the last 50 years, minimum. The repression and harassment also affected the Irish, Asians and Jews when they came to the US.

It's nearly the same argument the blacks in South Africa are using as for why Affirmative Action is already 160% over planned and rising. Meant to last 10 years, it's been around for over 16. The blacks are saying that since they weren't given the chance to study properly they are at a disadvantage. Apartheid has been over for 16 years. The generation that is currently growing up to be crooks, thieves and murderers all had the benefit of proper schooling and education, yet seek to continue blaming the white man for their condition, despite being given the advantage of Affirmative Action over white people.

In essence: I'm too lazy to work, so even though you've given me many advantages even over yourself, since you wronged me before I'm gonna keep riding that train as long as I can. The South African blacks use that excuse. You contend the US blacks are using that argument. The Palestinians are using a variation of that argument. At what point does a person stand up and accept responsibility for their own shortcomings?

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 17:22
My brothers was in 7th grade when my folks got divorced, including about 4 years of an unhappy marriage before that. He went through the same things my sister and I did, and he graduated as valedictorian.

The social disruption was temporary and he was able to adjust, he did not have to deal with chaos day in and day out without respite.


I believe that love negates the need for physical beauty and attraction. Point in case, my sister and brother in law met and after 24 hours knew they were getting married. It took them 11 months to convince their families and get everything organized. I don't necessarily agree with their methods, but after 6 years and almost 3 kids, I think they're doing just fine.

She's married to a lawyer, I guarantee you that if you post a pic of her as she was when they met, she is not a butter face.


Besides, if the majority of criminals are black, isn't it logical that blacks should be considered criminals? What one does with their life is eventually what defines them, i.e., drive. Society standards can get in the way and disrupt, but never impede one's will.

Non starter, the majority of criminals are not black- they are white. However blacks are arrested at rates that exceed their representation in society at general. The arrest rates also show massive variation from state to state. Iowa with a very small black community, arrests blacks at a rate 16 times that of whites.

A full third of black men have a legal history and 12% are in prison. A community cannot recover from that type of constant strain. Socially its carnage similar to that felt by the western powers in WWI or by Russia in WWII except it never ends. The loss of male productivity via temporary death (incarceration) and lack of skills combines with the lack of fathers/mentors to act as crushing weight on wealth accumulation.


Again, a small cross section, but I gave you 6 kids who's fathers weren't around, and 5 of them ended up doing something good with themselves.

From families that already have a history of educational success, inside of a community known for its prize of education.


I don't quite agree with that. In a community that is 75% black, 75% of the crimes will be committed by blacks. Plus, the suspect fits the crime. If looking for an illegal immigrant, look for Hispanics that don't speak English properly. If looking for an SEC violation, look for stock brokers and bankers. If looking for someone who is dealing drugs or murdered someone in the ghetto, look for a black person. The suspect usually fits the crime, and the crime usually fits the suspect.

When blacks are arrested completely out of proportion to their numbers, and then given prison sentences where whites would get jail for the exact same crime there is a problem. No one wants hardcore criminals released. But if a white guy gets a couple days in county for a drug charge and a black male gets a couple years.....


I happen to agree with you on that one, at least when it comes to Marijuana, not so sure about the harder stuff.

I am torn, pot, lsd, shrooms, xtc etc don't really have a major negative on society, crack and heroin do.


Again, I agree. Many people I know that went into teaching see it more as a calling than just a job, but somewhere along the way that gets pushed to the sidelines

Break the unions, we have enough codified worker protections.

Mihais
10 Jun 10,, 18:00
Zraver,this debate can go in circle till no end.You say that blacks are arrested while whites may not be arrested.Did I understand it correctly?So in effect you say the police in general is both corrupt and incompetent.Yet the statistics are clear;blacks commit more violent crimes.Now,there are lies,damned lies and statistics.But in their absence we have nothing to talk about,anecdotes aside.

dalem
10 Jun 10,, 18:10
I've already detailed that, I even posted a couple of links you refused to read.


Oh, white superiority stuff? That stacks society against marriage and stable families? I don't get it.

-dale

dalem
10 Jun 10,, 18:12
How many black women have the looks to attract and keep a law student and then lawyer?

Man I'm glad I'm not you.


Lynchings, Jim Crow, slavery, lack of any requirements for the states to fund schools for freedmen, were denied by law the right to learn to read, travel or hold certain jobs, welfare polices that had the direct result of breaking up the community, repression and harassment...... Basically it all adds up for a de-evolutionary path.

And how long is that going to be a valid excuse for underperforming?

-dale

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 18:36
And the Asians and the Irish?

The Asian's were answered above, the Irish, once the Americanized looked familiar and blended in.


Most of those have not been around in the last 50 years, minimum. The repression and harassment also affected the Irish, Asians and Jews when they came to the US. [/quotre]

but did not last as long, or get pushed so heavily.

[quote]It's nearly the same argument the blacks in South Africa are using as for why Affirmative Action is already 160% over planned and rising. Meant to last 10 years, it's been around for over 16. The blacks are saying that since they weren't given the chance to study properly they are at a disadvantage. Apartheid has been over for 16 years. The generation that is currently growing up to be crooks, thieves and murderers all had the benefit of proper schooling and education, yet seek to continue blaming the white man for their condition, despite being given the advantage of Affirmative Action over white people.

In essence: I'm too lazy to work, so even though you've given me many advantages even over yourself, since you wronged me before I'm gonna keep riding that train as long as I can. The South African blacks use that excuse. You contend the US blacks are using that argument. The Palestinians are using a variation of that argument. At what point does a person stand up and accept responsibility for their own shortcomings?

That type of nanny statism breeds dependency, its not what I advocate. I advocate the use of common sense to seek out the problems and create an environment that will break the cycle not continue it.

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 18:42
Zraver,this debate can go in circle till no end.You say that blacks are arrested while whites may not be arrested.Did I understand it correctly?So in effect you say the police in general is both corrupt and incompetent.Yet the statistics are clear;blacks commit more violent crimes.Now,there are lies,damned lies and statistics.But in their absence we have nothing to talk about,anecdotes aside.

Black males do commit more crimes, which you expect to see in a broken poverty filled culture. However, the rate of actual crimminal activity and arrest rates do not reflect each other. Urban Black crime rates are about twice as great as whites. We thus expect to see arrest rates reflect that, but the national arrest rate is 5 times higher and most for non-violent offenses which get prison terms where a white doing the same crime gets jail.

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 18:43
Oh, white superiority stuff? That stacks society against marriage and stable families? I don't get it.

-dale

you didn't even read it.

zraver
10 Jun 10,, 18:47
Man I'm glad I'm not you.

because I am honest? Our society puts white at the pinnacle. Take a look at Hollywood, the mecca for the beautiful- how many super hot black women are there? Halle Barry and...... There are a few more in music. Now look up white starlets. Its a reflection of internalized standards.




And how long is that going to be a valid excuse for underperforming?

-dale

As logn as the programs we have breed dependency. You want to end welfare as we know and cut it back to basically care for the disabled- then take a generational approach and put into place programs designed to give those on the bottom wood to make ladders, not broken elevators.

gunnut
10 Jun 10,, 19:14
because I am honest? Our society puts white at the pinnacle. Take a look at Hollywood, the mecca for the beautiful- how many super hot black women are there? Halle Barry and...... There are a few more in music. Now look up white starlets. Its a reflection of internalized standards.

Halle Barry is mixed. :biggrin:

The thing is, this is a society with 70% white people. People tend to like those who look like them. If not, then we have some evolutionary questions to answer.

I'm Asian. I prefer Asians girls and white girls (not all, but more than the others). Am I racist? Or does it have more to do with evolution (Asians) and environment (70% white population)?



As logn as the programs we have breed dependency. You want to end welfare as we know and cut it back to basically care for the disabled- then take a generational approach and put into place programs designed to give those on the bottom wood to make ladders, not broken elevators.

We first have to end the practice of reinforcing the thought that blacks are victims. They were. Not any more. The victim mentality offers an easy way out. Got a problem? Blame the whiteys. I'm done.

It should be "Got a problem? I could blame the whiteys, but I'll take responsibilities for my own failures. Let's get back on the horse and prove to those whiteys that you can't keep a good man down for long."

dalem
10 Jun 10,, 19:15
you didn't even read it.

Actually I went back and did read them.

-dale

Mihais
10 Jun 10,, 19:20
Z,one more comment and I'm out.Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.Hollyweird standards or fashion standards are the standards of a mostly white audience.Now,for whatever reason I don't find black or Asian girls hot(and I don't give a fuss if this is racist or not).Quite a few may think along this lines.Talking about tastes is not relevant in a debate on social issues.Carry on.

p.s Ok,I'll make an exception for Gunnut's (non-existent) daughter,but that's it.

dalem
10 Jun 10,, 19:28
because I am honest? Our society puts white at the pinnacle. Take a look at Hollywood, the mecca for the beautiful- how many super hot black women are there? Halle Barry and...... There are a few more in music. Now look up white starlets. Its a reflection of internalized standards.


Hollywood tells me I should find tinkertoys in short dresses attractive.

I don't.

Hollywood tells me lots of things that I don't pay attention to.

Our society puts SUCCESS and DECENCY at the pinnacle. Be successful and decent and people will respect you and want to be around you no matter what color your skin is or whether you stand or sit to pee.



As logn as the programs we have breed dependency. You want to end welfare as we know and cut it back to basically care for the disabled- then take a generational approach and put into place programs designed to give those on the bottom wood to make ladders, not broken elevators.

F*ck programs. We've already had way too many programs.

Look, it's not hard in this country - we pretty much give everyone an instruction book for getting ahead:

1) Be successful at what you do.

2) Treat others well.

3) Have a nice family.

4) Try not to be too much of a d!ck.

And that's pretty much it. I don't have any sympathy for anyone who can't figure those things out.

-dale