African-American leaders slow to warm up to Obama
Judgment reserved until plantation membership is fully certified
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Liberals — Comments (40) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The media may have anointed Barack Hussein Obama as their "chosen one" in the race for the presidency (at least, their "chosen one" for this month, with a mere 22 months remaining before the election). However, the similarly-anointed "Leaders of Black America" appear to be tightly guarding their own lamp oil, and to be watching Obama with more than a bit of apprehension.
"Civil rights leaders who have dominated black politics for much of the past two decades have pointedly failed to embrace the 45-year-old Illinois senator who is considering a bid to become America’s first black president," reported London's Sunday Times. The story quotes Jesse Jackson as saying, "Our focus right now is not on who's running, because there are a number of allies running."
Read on . . .
Calypso singer-cum-politico Harry Belafonte chimed in with the warning that America needs "to be careful about Obama," because "we don’t know what he’s truly about."
Other than lamenting the "media razzle-dazzle" and lack of "meat," Al Sharpton declined to comment on Obama, citing a possible presidential run of his own (again).
The reason for the chilly reception? One self-proclaimed "independent" Democrat strategist has a theory:
They are basically jealous. They’ve been toiling in the trenches for decades, and along comes this son of a Kenyan farmer and suddenly he’s measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.
Obama's ability to garner media attention without appearing at the side of Cindy Sheehan or Hugo Chavez, without publicly supporting the Duke rape case accuser in Durham, NC, without defending criminals with often-hollow claims of racism or police brutality, and without having to go to any other extreme lengths has doubtless grated on these men, none of whom shy from the spotlight.
While Obama has managed to maintain the appearance of being a centrist Democrat due in large part to his ability, for all intents and purposes, to "cherry-pick" those issues on which he will go on record with his opinion, a presidential campaign would seriously hinder that - especially, as the Times has reported one "analyst" as saying, if there were a Sharpton candidacy to contend with in the primaries, since it
would "put Obama on the spot" by forcing him to address awkward civil rights issues such as police brutality and racial profiling that he tends to steer clear of.
"One Democratic blogger," the Times added, "argued that Sharpton was 'just what the doctor ordered to keep Obama on the straight and narrow'."
The report concludes:
Others suggested that Sharpton would help [Hillary] Clinton by dividing black primary voters. In one interview last week, Sharpton warned that Obama could not take the black vote for granted. A strategist pointed out, however, that Obama could emerge as a "model of reason, compared to that blowhard Al (Sharpton)."
All true. One has to wonder, though, even if this is not only about attention (which, judging by the past records of Sharpton, Jackson, Belafonte, etc., it almost certainly is, at least in part), whether the biggest issue has to do with a desire to withhold approval until Obama's public persona moves farther to the left, and more in line with the toe-the-line-at-all-times, no-deviation-allowed black liberal Democrat standard (or at least the private assurance that he will do so once he has fooled the American mainstream into a victory).
The biggest worry, of course, would be that Obama would risk original thought, and thus require branding with the dread misnomer of "Uncle Tom" and the more hateful epithet of "Oreo" - much like Michael Steele, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Ken Blackwell, and any others who have committed the cardinal sin of questioning the givens of African-American political thought have been.
The choice will have to be made sooner rather than later, and, as Barack Hussein Obama will soon discover, the path of least resistance within his own party is clear: remain on the plantation, and receive unbending support regardless of how out-of-bounds you may go, much like William Jefferson ("in his freezer!"), who was given a standing ovation by the Congressional Black Caucus upon his reelective return to Washington, despite his being caught accepting bribes and hiding cash, has.
On the other hand, the tougher path involves much more risk, and very little reward from the left side of the aisle (or from "civil rights" leaders, or the CBC, or...). This path requires original thought, real principles, and the willingness to go against the grain and to march to a different beat than the locksteppers who set the standard for "acceptable" black leaders.
Should Barack Hussein Obama let his loyalty waver, and take the path of free thought and intellectual honesty, though, there is always the wife of the First Black President waiting in the wings to scoop up America's black vote.
« Do Nothing Dem Congress Slow-Bleeding US Auto Industry — Comments (46) | The Carter Center resignations — Comments (4) »
African-American leaders slow to warm up to Obama 40 Comments (0 topical, 40 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I have some problems with Obama, like support for Partial birth abortion, but what is the point of using his middle name unless it is to attack him?
People here are smart enough to know that it is just a cheap way to attack him. I don't like that kind of politics but it seems some people feel it is necessary.
the argument can never be refocused onto substantive policy issues. Our side loses all credibility and he gets nothing but sympathetic press.
Case in point is Bill Clinton. I wanted all of the personal crap including Whitewater and the Bimbo Eruptions ignored. Let the tabloids go after him on that stuff, and they would have. Republicans should have spent their time and effort fighting on policy and national security not Bimbos. Had we done that, there's a good chance - or at least some chance - that he would have been shown to be the idiot that it appears he is but no one will admit or address. And by now, it pretty much makes no difference anyway.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
on the connection betwen Chia campaign money and the missile tech we gave them. I didn't care about a land deal.
catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer.
that was simply ignored because everybody was wacked out that he had an intern under his desk. All that stuff should have been fed to the National Enquirer and the Congress should have gone after him on China's $$ and the technology transfers. We should have hammered him on Gorlick's Wall too.
But hey, they don't call us the Stupid Party for nothing.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
A few days ago there was a reccomended diary lamenting that there are few liberal commentators on this site discussing ideas. This front page submission is one reason why otherwise intelligent liberals either refuse to comment or engage in bomb throwing when they do.
Now for the requisite disclaimer: I am a liberal. I have read redstate almost everyday for about two years and have been a member of the site for almost a year. I rarely comment because doing so generally results in some sort of internet peeing for distance contest.
The information that black leaders have yet to voice strong support for Obama is a 'news' item that I would never find through traditional channels or on the 'liberal' blogs that I read. Hence, why I come to redstate. But this frontpage item is marred with the bomb throwing that makes me dispise this site sometimes.
Is it necessary to begin the 'Barrack Hussein Obama' meme? Is it necessarly to engage in the 'plantation membership' race baiting? And how does William Jefferson's corruption have anything to do with this story?
I was really enjoying this frontpage submission until the last four paragaphs.
...has a link to where it's been used by a Democrat. There are no new "baiting" or "bomb-throwing" terms in this submission.
The Jefferson inclusion is for just the reasons mentioned: if a black Democrat politician remains true to the standards set by the "leadership" - i.e., supporting affirmative action and welfare, engaging in race-baiting of their own, etc. - then there is vitrtually no sin that cannot be overlooked, let alone forgiven. Jefferson's standing ovation is a very obvious example of that.
The only cardinal sin that can be committed is leaving the reservation (I trust you have less problem with that word than with the inflammatory "plantation") on issues of leftist dogma.
Hence the final few paragraphs.
it isn't 'new' does not make it relevant to the discussion. The 'because the other side does it' rational is a non sequitor. Defend yourself as you wish. If redstate's primary mission is to throw red meat at the base then you have nothing to apologize for. However, if Redstate's aim is to foster political discussion and thought, then perhaps a slight change in rhetoric is in order.
dumb.
137, I was a liberal democrat for 20 years. I was an activist, party official, campaign manager, convention delegate, you name it. So I can't be fooled about what the dem party is. I was in the closed door meetings until my conscience wouldn't allow it. The main reason I left the party in 2000 was watching lib whites become more like the racists they once loathed. I was a dem primarily due to the race issue. In the 70s, most racists I knew were repubs. My dad coached the first integrated little league teams. I care about this issue. I watched as libs became obsesses with race and esp using blacks as a power base of victim dependents. they came to treat blacks like children. The only thing that can explain it is misplaced white guilt and the dictionary definition of racist, ie one that believes blacks are inferior.
GOP Silent as Dems Choose Racist as House Leader
Sunday, November 19, 2006 5:23 PM
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/c5105cfa-6d6f-4398-8f1f-e561c83a9df6
The Border State expert spotter of Token Blacks slavishly supporting the Party of the Great Emancipator defeated Okinawa's Secretary of Temporary Housing to become the Majority Leader of the Party of Post-Segregation Race-Based Legislation this week, as GOP "leaders" prepared to call for the Un-Blue Crab's resignation should he ever praise a dying former Dixiecrat.
OK, I made the last part up.
But, I haven't been able to find ONE elected Republican who thinks that it is inappropriate for Steny Hoyer to serve as a House leader despite his not one, but two racist comments denigrating Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is Black.
The Caucasian Hoyer, who called Steele a "token" in 2002, described him as "slavishly supporting the GOP" when campaigning for his White opponent during October.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/18/132551.shtml?s=ic
But its worse than "just that."
See Malkin excerpt from before the Election:
Hoyer didn't just innocently use the word in ordinary conversation. He employed it during a comedy routine in front of a crowd of mostly black business owners:
[Democrat Senate candidate Ben] Cardin, a dry and detailed-oriented career legislator, was upstaged at his Upper Marlboro event Sunday by the irrepressible Rep. Steny Hoyer, who did a comedy routine about the event’s host, Cool Wave Water, and told the audience that Steele had had “a career of slavishly supporting the Republican Party.”
Why would it be funny if not for the sneering, racist implications? Hoyer is the number two Democrat in Congress. He knew what he was doing: pandering. Hoyer now claims disingenuously that no insult was intended. Bull. In the past, Hoyer has derided Steele as a "token." Black Democrats in Maryland have no problem with smearing Steele as an "Uncle Tom."
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006141.htm
Why doesn't the GOP, a party founded for the purpose of abolishing slavery, denounce Hoyer and demand he step down like they did Lott, if for no other reason than to to defend their own candidate? A white Democrat directs racial slurs at a Black Republican and the GOP is silent.
The GOP is usually silent when a spine is required. Silence. the sound of a content minority.
What must a white democrat do or say to Blacks before the GOP would take notice? Use the "N" word in public? Throw an Oreo cookie at them?
I doubt even that would move them. After all, Steny is their honorable friend. And he's a "reasonable" man. A guy they can deal with. Not like that Murtha character.
I have found no evidence that Murtha has ever denigrated black people. I guess Steny will tell better jokes in conference committees.
Does the GOP have ONE man with courage? Because if we do, you know...
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report
I will not attempt to deny that there are racists in the Democratic party. But the Republican party can claim many of its own. This is a zero sum game because it's simply name calling. You say Steny Hoyer, I say Trent Lott, You say Robert Byrd, I say David Duke, and we can go further and further down the rabbit hole until 'I saw a racist bumper sticker'. I am not a liberal because of race or any single issue.
And I can tell you this with confidence. I am a liberal who votes democrat. If the republicans coopt more liberal issues then the democrats, then I will be a liberal who votes reublican. Politics seems to be able choosing the lesser evil. Even if the democrats can't enact my sepecific adgenda, they will come much closer than the republicans. Just for your edification (and not to engage in debate, here are a few of my personal issues that are currently antithetical to the republican ethos).
1. Perpetrate the necessary war on terror by granting those detained in the conflict rights under the geneva convention. Any detained person who is either a citizen of the US or is arrested on American soil should be tried under the constitutional prescription.
2. Increase emissions controls on industrial producers and devote substantial resources in R&D for renewable energy sources.
3. The progressive income tax system works. Governmental transfer payments fit the kaldor-hicks criterion.
Trent Lott (who made a favorable comment about strom thurmond) vs Steny Hoyer, David Duke (who is gone) vs Robert Byrd. There is no comparison. You can throw Howard Dean in there as well but I know he just doesn't count.
But seeing as you are going from a position of ignorance lets go down your list.
1. I suppose J. Edgar Hoover should have done the same to Nazi saboteurs captured on American soil ? As to Geneva convention rights, have you read the document ? They don't have rights under it.
2. Just what would you do to see that we still had industry in this country after this program was put in place ?
3. Let me see after the last round of taxcuts the lowest 30 or so percent pay nothing, how much more progressive do you want to get ? Oh You might try getting rid of social security which is regressive in its taxation and benefit distribution.
So what was your specific agenda again?
As to the republican ethos at least there is one besides pandering to voters.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
btw, are you kin to the famous Oliphants, ie the cartoonist and lib columnist?
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report
Than what I wrote, just having seen two other trolls play the I'm open to reason card. I'm Kin to reasonably prominent Oliphants just not those.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I'm proud of my family too, and am not enamored of fame and celebrity at all! Privacy invasion over.
I do think I may be kin to Adam and Noah......
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
day liberalism
Preliminarily: I am not convinced by any of the flat tax proposals that they are workable for a host of reasons; while I see the logic and ideological purity of a flat tax, I have no problem with some progressivity in the tax code, but do think that there are problems with the state of affairs that exists now after Reagan, Bush41, Clinton and Bush43 have essentially exempted most of the lower and middle class from having a stake in the funding of the federal government except for social security and medicare (a high percentage of the lower and middle classes pay ZERO or little fed income tax); WHAT IS KALDOR-HICKS?; and where do you stand on the war?
You seem like a liberal with sense; I am still a classic lib in many ways; so let's roll.
On race, I became a democrat primarily due to there openness on the issue in the 70s. My parents helped integrate little league and cub scouts. I hate racism. And racists need to be called out, whether they are Michael Richards of George Wallace or those that practice same in more subtle ways, although I don't consider what Hoyer did as subtle.
More importantly, while I do think that many dems are racist, in the sense that they think that blacks are inferior, what matters is not really what they think, but the policies they promote and how they treat blacks. I may think that OVERALL, on average that the Irish are smarter than the Scots, but that should not inform policy, effect how I treat them or color evaluations of individuals.
Many are racist and don't know it. Many are naive young people that are useful idiots. many are not racist by act racist for power.
Having been in the dem party 20 years, knowing more repubs than dems most of my adult life, and being in the GOP for 6 years, I am a witness that their is NO COMPARISON between the two on any of the above categories. The dem party is obsessed with skin color as a means to power.
What do you mean by the word, "perpetrate" in #1.
Plus, let me be clear about your position on Geneva and the facts on the issues raised by #1.
Jealously, I must advise, that I was one of the first, if not the first columnist, after 9/11 to broach the subject of, and correctly predict that captured terrorists would be considered "illegal enemy combatants" (IECs) under the law of war, and, thus, not entitled to be treated as POWs under the laws of war, including Geneva, the main purpose for the passage of which was to make such distinctions between legal military and illegals, so as to discourage war among civilians as happened in WWI and WWII.
You are aware that we held hundreds of thousands of POWs and IECs in the US during WWII, and: (a) that none got lawyers unless charged with a war crime,(b) trials of any kind to determine if they could be held, or (c)trials in US courts even if charged with war crimes.
You do not suggest that those hundreds of thousands should have had (b) do you?
more later
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report
There's a lot here. I'll try to be succinct.
On Race:
I don't know what specific policies you are referring to when you claim the democrats treat minorities as inferior. I'll offer two specific areas. Last election cycle a 'minority' issue was the sundowning of certain provisions of the civil rights acts. Republican Leadership in 2005 refused to comment on whether those provisions would be renewed. Then last summer in order to decapitate the democrats arguments, the provisions were extended for another 20 years. Even though the provisions were ancillary to the crux of the civil rights acts, the dems did nothing wrong by informing their base of this issue. To the adversarial eye this looks like pandering, but the civil rights acts are very meaningful to minorities, especially blacks.
The other issue is 'affirmative action'. There is no current federal law requiring affirmative action. To win a workplace disrimination suit in court the plaintiff must prove systemic decision making and not just the absense of a certain demographic. While res ipsa loqitor suits have prevailed, the entity (according to the case law) must have more than 500 employees. Diversity programs are put in place by private entities for several reasons.
First, group think studies studies state that working groups composed of a diverse segment come to better decisions (diversity in this case refers to gender, race, life experience, ect) because different demographics have different world views. In group think, the more ideas offered to the group results in the most choices. Rational actors will select the best choice offered to them.
Second, there is something to be said for granting opportunities to those who have not had them. It is very difficult for a student in an inner city school to obtain the same quality of secondary education as a student at a prep school with a 20,000 a year price tag.* I differ from many of my contemporaries on the idea of affirmative action. Personally, I think that socioeconomics should govern rather than skin color. Whites in the appalacian hills of West Virginia need just as much help as blacks in west philadephia.
Ending the discussion of race, Democrats are more focused on race because race is a vital portion of its constituency.
The War on Terror:
To utter the infamous words; I was for the war (in Iraq) before I was against it. When it was clear that WMD would not be found I felt duped, call it spite but that's when I began to turn. Then when it became clear that Saddam's regime had no real ties to Al Queda I questioned the rationale. Now that it seems that the American forces in Iraq are creating more combatants than they are eliminating I believe it is time for the Iraqi people to stand up for themselves tomorrow without the sacrifice of more American soldiers. An economist at heart, it feels like the president is throwing good money after bad. He reminds me of a degenerate gambler with the mindset of 'I've lost 20 hands of blackjack in a row, that means I have to win this time'.
This is the crux of my issue detainees in war on terror: The war is assymetric and without borders. In theory (and seemly so in practice), a person can be detained forever without the ability to defend themself through tribunal. Redstaters like to compare the War on Terror to WWII. However, a POW in WWII knew that they would be released when a) the Nazi's were destroyed or b) the Nazi's destroyed the allies. In this conflict a detainee has no idea what the war really is or what the end game is. Terrorism is as old as the Huns ranging across the steppes of Asia. Terrorism is not something that can be destroyed because it is a tactic.
Of course the goal should be to remove 'terrorists' from the global battlefield, but there should be a fair process to determine whether an individual is a terrorist or just some dude in the wrong place at the wrong time.
But my comment was more focused upon interrogation techniques for foreign combatants. Once we begin using the methods of the enemy we are no better than them. This includes water boarding and sensory deprivation.
As for those captured on American soil or are American citizens, the burden of constitutional trial should be required. Tim McVey recieved his due process, why not Jose Padilla. As an attorney, I am confident that trial seeks truth. The absense of adversarial trial implies deception. The best way to legitimize the US War on terror is to expose these animals to the world in a transparent manner.
On taxes:
A Kaldor Hicks theorum states that a change is efficient if anyone who gains from change could compensate those who lose. I could draw you a graph in 30 seconds and it would make perfect sense. Explaining the theorum would take forever. But the argument boils down to this: Governmental transfer payments create benefits for everyone. And those benefits are greater than if those transfer payments did not exist. Intersecting the entire argument is the marginal utility of a dollar. A dollar is worth a dollar to everyone regardless of how much money they have. However, the utility of a dollar is different to a person who has 100 dollars and a person who has 1000 dollars. The person with 100 has increased their budget by ~1% but the person with 1000 has increased their budget by .1%. This also means that the person with 100 dollars is more likely to spend their 1 dollar than the person with 1000.
You need to escape conventional thinking and start asking some hard questions of the people who have duped you.
Let's start with the war. I am sorry you feel duped, but it was Democrats in general and war critics in particular who duped you.
On WMD, the President and Congress acted on the best information they had. In my country, the UK, the government exaggerated the WMD case, because it was politically convenient for them to do so. That did not happen in the US - at least, the administration did not do it. Some Democrats - notably John Edwards - did so, for the same reason Tony Blair did: to provide cover with a party that otherwise might not support him. Edwards, as I am sure you know, was the only Senator to speak of an imminent threat from Saddam.
If you read the Congressional resolutions you will see that WMD was one minor thread of the case. While Blair and Edwards were exaggerating the nature of the threat, Bush was very consciously trying to avoid that. He several times challenged the CIA on the quality of their evidence, demanding to know how sure they were of the case. The CIA assured him it was "a slam dunk". (I believe that is a reference to an American sport and means a really, really strong case).
The situation is similar regarding the links between Saddam and terrorism. These are well-documented and longstanding. I believe it was Jimmy Carter who first put Iraq on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. It is Democrats who talk about - usually by denying them - links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. These have always been speculative. There were several attempts to negotiate alliances of convenience between the two, but the precise state of the relationship between them in 2003 remains unknown. No-one in the administration ever claimed that Saddam had a hand in planning 9/11. This is a discussion that has taken place almost exclusively between Democrats.
Sorry you were duped, but I suggest you take the matter up with those who were respsonsible.
Regarding transfer payments, you make some valid points. You fail to account for the efficiency loss due to administration of the system, but if we ignore morality for the moment, and also ignore the question of incentives, and focus only on the marginal utility question that you raise, I am sure it is theoretically possible to achieve transfer payments so 'efficient' that they cancel out the loss due to administration. There is, however, no aspect of the American welfare state, except perhaps food stamps, which comes close to meeting this criterion.
Very few parts - and small, marginal, parts at that - of the American welfare state are transfer payments from the rich to the poor. Most they are enormous shuffling exercises in which the vast majority of people both pay in and pay out. It would be much easier to meet your criteria if only a small minority paid in and only a small minority took out. The trouble with the shuffling exercise is that it takes sophisticated arithmetic to calculate who derives a net benefit in dollar terms. Calculating the marginal utility of someone's dollars cannot even begin until you know whether they have paid in more or drawn out more.
This can only be examined at the very general or the very specific level. It might be possible to make the calculation for one person (though only at the end of that person's life). It is much harder to make the calculation for 'the poor'.
What we do know, however, is the following.
1. Because of compound interest, people who begin paying in earlier, pay in very considerably more than people who begin paying in later. This is so even if their actual payments in the early years are relatively low.
2. People who die earlier tend to draw out less. At the extreme case, people who die before retirment draw no social security at all. Because of compound interest, people who die at 75 draw out many times more money than people who die at 70.
3. People whose remuneration reaches its peak early in their life make higher payments than people whose earnings peak late in their career.
4. Up to a fairly modest cap, people who earn more, pay in more.
Of those four tendencies, the last is much the smallest. It is also the only one which tends to benefit the poor at the expense of the not-poor.
The other tendencies suggest that someone who starts work straight out of high school is likely to have made ten years of payments before a contemporary who qualifies as a lawyer or doctor has made any. Furthermore, if the high school graduate works in a fairly low skill job with high physical demands, his income may already have reached its peak, and may decline as he gets older. The lawyer, however, will start on relatively modest earnings, and will make his highest payments into the system when there is least opportunity for interest on them to compound. The lawyer is also likely to have far exceeded the earnings cap, so higher earnings at this point in his career do not equate to higher payments. A person earning the same lifetime earnings, but over a longer period, will have paid more in.
With compound interest it is therefore likely that a modestly skilled factory worker has paid in more over his lifetime than a top corporate lawyer.
Do I need to extend this, by asking you which of the two is likely to live longer, and therefore draw out the most?
A Ponzi scheme, like social security, is a type of pyramid selling. Like all pyramid schmemes, it promises people great rewards in the future. Like all pyramid schemes it is aimed at lower paid people, claiming to offer them particular benefits. Like all pyramid schemes, these are precisely the people who end up funding it to the benefit, principally of the scheme founders - in this case the one group of people who are sure to benefit from the scheme, the government workers who are paid to administer it.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
To be honest I watered everything down on my tax discussion because not everyone has formal training and being in the clouds with this stuff can get very confusing. Your tax analysis was of high quality, but I think you are focusing on social security - my thrust is towards means tested programs. All too often do I hear a conservative rail against welfare, but the economist sees a 0-sum game. And unfortunately, it is impossible to calculate a person's governmental benefit - ie. how much value comes from our military, roads ect. This infrastructure benefit is static. Then the other part of a governmental benefit is dynamic - what they participate in. Ie. Pell grants, accelerated depreciation, TANF, ect.By definition, to transfer, some need to pay in more than they recieve. Ultimately the whole game ends up a discussion of fairness (you get what you pay in) vs. justice (those who can bear the cost pay).
On the macro level - those who can afford to bear the costs of capitalism should 'help' out those without the ability to do so. This idea is well codified in our common law because it is based on principles of fundamental fairness. Now, in a perfect world capitalism would not create poor, only rich - that is clearly not the case. Essentially 'welfare' and other transfer payments from high tax bracket to low bracket (or the brackets themselves) smooth out the brownian trajectory of our economy.
Unfortunately, there are inefficiencies in governmental transfer payments. However, there are transaction costs in everything. As coste states in a world of 0 transaction costs all resources would be put to their most efficient use.
As for removing inefficienies in government, I'm all for that. But as the last 100 years have bore out, it is clear that neither party has the political stomach to decrease the administrative footprint of our government. Note: Reagan, while sincere in his attempts to decrease the size of the government, just rearranged the chits on the board.
"Now, in a perfect world capitalism would not create poor, only rich "
You need to continuously revise it upward. The poor person of today is considerably wealthier than a middle class person of a century ago and could certainly claim superior comforts to a lower upper class person of two centuries ago.
Capitalism is singularly efficient in generating wealth and distributing it. What it does not do is generate equal status. Nor would it be desirable for it to try.
You argue for the government making the economic calculations and that quite simply put has failed.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
I absolutely did focus on social security, but the same considerations do apply to public education and medicare. They are transfers mostly from the poor to the not-poor, and therefore must fail your marginal utility efficiency test by definition.
There are other programmes - I mentioned food stamps - which are genuinely targetted at the poor. It is theoretically possible that these could actually benefit the poor, but not by the degree to which the other much larger programmes cost them money.
There are reasons to doubt the efficiency of targetted programmes too - they cost much more to administer and defining poverty has become increasingly slippery. See here for a further look at that question. But abolishing means tested programmes is not my first priority. I focussed on social security for a very simple reason. It is far and away the largest element of the American welfare state. Take out the big targets first.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
of the 14th amendment and the civil rights act. The dems favor such policies and judges that misinterpret the constitution and the civil rights act. And for all but one sentence of your reply, so did you, despite saying you didn't know what policies I meant. So many lib friends also exhibit this cognitive dissonance and racist attitudes without even realizing it due to indoctrination by libs and the natural human desire to think of oneself as superior. But you did say this:
"Personally, I think that socioeconomics should govern rather than skin color."
Congrats. There is hope for you yet.
more later
Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here will be published Tuesday, The Day After martin Luther King, Jr. Day in Reply To This — User Info — #22
You make more than I do so I would have a higher utility of use of your dollars than you would.
Give me your wallet! (Remember it's for the common good!)
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
"granting opportunities to those who have not had them." Liberal court imposed aff action quotas, removes opportunities from those that had them.
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer on The Day After Martin Luther King Day. Now also Legal Editor for The HinzSight Report and aware that “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, GC also blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report.
Party still argues for all that and victim dependency. They are the party of political correctness that treats blacks as children, argues about the fantasy of institutional racism that makes it impossible for the poor inferior blacks to make it in America without their dem party plantation help, that calls anyone a racist that holds blacks to adult standards in competence and moral values, calls black conservatives uncle toms, supports black "leaders" that use race as an industry to line their pockets, argues for forced busing, teaches lies in universities on race, opposes judges that support the dismantling of the race-based laws and rulings, etc ad infinitum
I can't be fooled friend. I was a dem party official that has been in the closed door meetings as recently as 2000. I'm the dem party's worst whistle blowing nightmare.
You also overstate the case on the state of the law. I am a 15 year trial and appellate lawyer. The dem party is skin pigmentation obsessed.
Catch Gamecock’s DeVine MSM debut in the The Charlotte Observer.
EVERYBODYS worst nightmare. You're a lawyer.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
But everyone knows it will come up, especially when there is so little of substance to discuss concerning the man.
The William Jefferson issue comes up as part of the overall theme of the democratic party on these matters. Truth be told I was surprised Bob Byrd didn't make the article either. As a liberal I am surprised you don't make the connection. The Democratic party while having many ostensibly liberal components is not the or a liberal party. It is primarily an opportunistic organism not unlike mold. Thus when while professing liberal values it puts forth candidates whose primary qualifications are name recognition or looking good on television, or its members comprise race baiting black demagogues and Klansmen, it generates significant head scratching.
I would have to say that the biggest piece of consternation amongst the right is why the "Traditional Democratic Constituencies" continue to be so despite being repeatedly short changed by the democratic party. I mean if you are going to sell your vote don't do so cheaply.
Veritas magna est et praevalet.
Obama one of their own. I have seen quotes in the local Chicago papers questioning whether Obama really understands the American Black experience because:
1. He is half-white. Raised by his white mother in Hawaii and Kansas.
2. His father was not a black American, he was a black African.
However, I think that the average black voter along with most white Dems and many Independants will ignore those opinions and vote for Obama. If nominated, he will be a formidable candidate.
lessons from the Black experience. The libs forgot MLK's lesson before his body was cold. In that, Obama is one cool soul brother. The problem with Obama as President is not his race, his name, his age, or his experience.
The problem is his liberal views.
You are correct in your assesment.
How are you super fly?
read my tagline
my head is too samll
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson, and speaking of which, catch Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here on Tuesday in The Charlotte Observer. GC blogs at a Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report
Two reasons, both pretty pathetic:
1) Having black skin is a minor consideration for whether the "civil rights leadership" supports a politician or public figure- for example, Powell, Rice, Thomas, Steele, Swan. What they really care about is if a candiate provokes strong antipathy from middle/right white America (hence their fanatic support for Bill Clinton- what did he really do for black people in this country? And by extension they apparently have strong support for Hillary). It galls the "civil rights leadership" that Obama gets so much support and such favorable ratings from white people in this country. "Civil rights leadership" secretly loathes what Obama has presented himself as so far- someone who wants to bring people toghether on a message that transcends racialism- we'll see how long he can keep singing this tune. But its a fact that white people in this country will respond to a moderate black candidate who rises above racial antagonism- because guess what, 90%+ of white people in this country are actually not racist. And this reality drives the "civil rights leadership" nuts because it undercuts their basis for existance.
2) Which brings us to reason number two, what really scares the heck out of the "civil rights leadership" - what if Obama was actually elected president? That would really muddy their message that America is the global bastion of racism and bigotry. It might become much harder to perpetuate the cult of victimhood that is the bread and butter for the "civil rights leadership."
Unless Obama gets back on the reservation with a message of race baiting and victimhood, expect the so call civil rights leadership support for him to continue to be extremely tepid.
PS- please drop the HUSSEIN thing- it is petty and unecessary.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008.
Liberals don't say that all of America is full of racism...
Just the South.
And to be fair I do believe race problems are far from over. The first African American governor of Mass. was just elected which says something.
racism. Honestly HT, I think the Left has gone so far off the deep end
that it is hard to see a huge difference in how they vilify the south and everything and place in America that they loathe.
Basically, they hate America, ie actual America that exists today and which has a recorded history.
They love imaginary Americas like Camelot or the one they dream of where America persuades the whole world to be good if we divide up all our wealth and give the rest of the world equal shares.
If you have not yet read Shelby Steele's "White Guilt", then by all means do so tomorrow on MLK Day. Its simply brilliant and a quick entertaining read.
more later
It says that, contrary to what you claim (Liberals don't say that all of America is full of racism...Just the South.) the wonderful people in the North are plenty racist themselves. At least by the silly standards being employed here.
in any conversation with conservatives about race is the underlying assumption that the reason blacks don't vote for the GOP is the media, or the civil rights leadership or some other reason.
What I never see is something akin to the following:
Black voters are not stupid. They are not lead around like some dog by leaders with nefarious intent. They are voting as rationally as other ethic groups.
So what are they seeing that we (conservatives) do not?
Here is what I see in the heart of the African American Community in Tampa on election day:
Lots of Democratic signs and people greeting voters as they enter the voting place.
The only GOP person is there to watch the vote. No one is holding a sign.
When the GOP shows up with a sign holder at the precinct I work at, I will know the GOP is actually fighting for the Black vote.
Gamecock's first dead-tree MSM DeVine Conservative Voice column here will be published Tuesday, The Day After martin Luther King, Jr. Day in Reply To This — User Info — #39
First, if your civil rights recently came about by initiative of the federal government, you'd also likely question the merits of conservative non-interventionism. It's a tough sell for us for start with.
Second, the "Republicans are evil and don't care about the poor and non-white." idea is believed by many, even though it's not true. IMO, we should do more to prove that it's silly.
Still, both of these factors should naturally diminish over time.
I predict it will be black politicians and church leaders who refer to Obama as Barack HUSSEIN Obama and it will be picked up by Clinton allies. Then, immediately going into the general election, they will all collectively blame racist Republicans for daring to use Obama's middle name.