Home | Community | Message Board


Crestline Sales - MycoPath
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy
    #4148869 - 05/08/05 01:52 AM (11 years, 7 months ago)

File this one in the Great Society archive. For those of you that are not aware, I believe that Lyndon Baines Johnson was the worst President in American history, and his "Great Society" and "War on Poverty" programs have done more to destroy America than any enemy could ever hope to accomplish.

Broken Cities by Steven Hayward

Here are some excerpts:

?Ten of America?s 25 largest cities have lost population during the 1990s, including Boston, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Chicago, and, of course, Detroit. Most of these cities have been steadily losing population for a generation while their suburbs thrive. For example, as Atlanta?s population has declined by 19 percent since 1960, its suburbs have grown by 396 percent. As the table on page 15 shows, this pattern is repeated in many major cities across the country. The decline of these older central cities cannot be attributed to a faltering economy in any of these metropolitan areas. Nor is it due to "white flight," for blacks have also fled the central cities in large numbers. The black populations of Chicago, Cleveland, Philadelphia, and St. Louis have all fallen since 1970. Washington, D.C., has 140,000 fewer black residents than it had in 1970.?

?Our major cities were once magnets of opportunity for low-income people; now they are places where the poor are isolated from opportunity. In 1960, central cities housed roughly one-quarter of America?s poor. Today they contain nearly half. Urban unemployment is twice the national rate and median household income in central cities is typically half the level of surrounding suburbs. Job growth followed the middle class to the suburbs: Nearly 80 percent of all new jobs today are being generated there. The amount of suburban office space surpassed that of downtown office space in the early 1980s, and is now one-third higher (see chart on page 16). "Most new economic growth," writes Joel Kotkin, an expert on urban affairs, "is inversely related to its distance from the inner city." George Gilder reflects the general popular mood when he writes that "cities are dirty, dangerous, and pestilential."

?The overriding cause of the nation?s urban calamity is modern liberal social policy. Big cities, the political strongholds of liberalism, were supposed to be laboratories for the Great Society expansion of the welfare state. Instead, cities became the principal victims of liberal ideology. Three failures of liberalism combined to generate a ruinous urban policy: the failure to nurture the sources of economic growth, the failure to understand urban neighborhoods, and the failure to appreciate the importance of a strong moral order.?

?We tend to forget today that the anti-poverty warriors of the 1960s thought that, as Sergeant Shriver told Congress in 1966, poverty could be completely eliminated in a decade.


A decade? Are we there yet? Any minute now.

Robert Weaver, the first secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), declared that "it is our goal to reconstruct the physical and social fabric of the American urban environment." The result was just the opposite.

I would take argue with Hayward there. The Great Society did indeed reconstruct the physical and social fabric of the American urban environment. It might have been the opposite of the planned "utopia", but it was in fact done on a large and massive scale.

?Black activists especially found that they could get instant results by threatening local politicians. In San Francisco, for example, a small mob marched into Mayor John Shelley?s office in 1967 and threatened to start a riot if budget cuts for community groups were not rescinded by 5 p.m. that day. The mayor rolled over on the spot. Thus was born the tactic of "mau-mauing," which has fed the politics of grievance ever since. Fred Siegel describes this "riot ideology" as "a racial version of collective bargaining." The view that the primary way for poor groups to get ahead is to demand money and programs from government "became part of the warp and woof of big-city politics."

?Most of the riots of the 1960s were not "race riots" at all; in fact, blacks and whites in Detroit looted amicably together in 1967 (where, incidentally, it was found that 83 percent of the rioters who were arrested had jobs, and half were United Auto Workers ). Los Angeles, the site of the Watts riot of 1965, had been named by the National Urban League in 1964 as the best big city in America for blacks, and opinion polls of northern urban blacks found that more than 80 percent thought life was improving for blacks. Still, liberals read deep political significance into riots, the apotheosis being Hubert Humphrey?s 1967 remark that if he lived in a ghetto, he might riot, too.?


The call went out for the creation of 2 million government-funded jobs and $100 billion in additional federal spending on poverty?this at a time when the total federal budget was still less than $200 billion and unemployment was below 4 percent.?

Community action was only the beginning. Other spectacular failures can be seen in crime, education, and housing. Probably the most egregious failure in the area of education was the use of busing to achieve racial desegregation. The busing of children miles away from their neighborhood schools had the effect of accelerating middle-class flight from the central cities. Hostility to busing wasn?t limited to whites; opinion polls found that a majority of blacks also opposed it. The worst backlash came in northern cities that had never practiced legal segregation, while many southern cities, such as Charlotte, North Carolina, implemented busing with much less rancor. Central-city public schools in the North soon became less integrated, exactly the opposite of the policy?s intent. As middle-class flight to the suburbs made the failure of busing obvious, liberals sought to bus suburban children into the central city. A federal judge imposed this on Detroit?s suburbs in 1972. Fortunately, the Supreme Court overruled this decision in 1974, slowing the spread of this bizarre practice.


Interesting to see the law of unintended consequences at work. Busing for integration actually promotes segregation. Busing was a huge failure nationwide. Every year they roll out the anniversary of Brown vs. the Board of Education, but nobody ever wants to tell you the truth about busing and the effect it had on communities (black and white) across this nation.

Quote:

What liberals did to the public schools through forced busing, they repeated for urban neighborhoods through housing policy. For a certain cast of the liberal mind, it is always 1933, when one-third of America was ill-nourished, ill-clad, and ill-housed.




Quote:

Liberal reformers had no appreciation for the way in which a freely functioning housing market acts as a ladder, helping the working poor as they rise out of poverty. Howard Husock of Harvard?s Kennedy School has detailed the large amount of low-income housing produced by the private marketplace in the first half of the 20th century, a substantial part of which consisted of owner-occupied homes and small multi-family units.




Quote:

Martin Anderson pointed out in The Federal Bulldozer (1964) that between 1950 and 1960, urban renewal efforts tore down 126,000 homes and built only 28,000 new units in their place. The average rent in the new units was three or four times higher than the units they replaced. Anderson found that "it was virtually impossible for any person displaced from an urban renewal area to move back in." By 1965, Anderson later estimated, a million people had been displaced. Most were simply relocated to other slums, giving credence to the then-popular slogan that "urban renewal equals Negro removal."




Quote:

A 1993 study found that crime rates in Los Angeles public housing projects are three times higher than crime rates in surrounding high-crime neighborhoods. In light of this finding, it is not hyperbolic to think of public housing projects as de facto adjuncts to prisons, in which parolees keep law-abiding residents hostage. In short, federal policy has done to the housing market what the minimum wage has done to the job market: It has cut off the bottom rungs of the housing ladder, disrupted the social function of the housing market, and made it more difficult for many poor people to improve their housing conditions.




Quote:

The social programs of urban liberalism naturally required explosive growth in taxes and spending. Big-city spending took off during the 1960s and 1970s, fueled by generous amounts of outside aid. Between 1962 and 1972, spending in America?s 28 largest cities increased 198 percent, while federal and state aid to cities rose 370 percent.




Quote:

Siegel reports that in New York City 87 cents of every welfare dollar was consumed by the welfare bureaucracy.




87 cents on the fucking dollar. Pay the man.

Quote:

The most notable case was New York City, which invented new taxes and raised old ones with wild abandon while leading the way in expanding welfare as a positive good. New York City?s per capita tax burden is three times higher than the national average for major cities, and its debt is five times the average for major cities. The business exodus from New York City is a well-known story. In 1965, New York City was the headquarters for nearly half of the Fortune 500 companies. Only 46 remain today.



The exodus of big companies is only the tip of the job-killing iceberg. High taxes and onerous regulations exact an even higher toll on the small businesses and entrepreneurs that actually generate most new job growth. As they reported in the Manhattan Institute?s City Journal, economists Steven G. Craig and D. Andrew Austin have estimated that New York?s tax and regulatory burden has lowered the city?s employment potential by a staggering 1 million jobs. Small wonder that unemployment has actually risen in New York City over the last three years while unemployment nationally has fallen to the lowest level in 30 years.




Quote:

When cities aren?t able to grow their budgets with federal handouts, they usually resort to two other strategies: bribing large companies to move into their cities (or not to leave in the first place) with tax breaks, and indulging what might be called the "Edifice Complex"?building new sports arenas, shopping malls, convention centers, and other commercial "magnets" for economic activity downtown. New York is again the champion of the bribe-to-stay strategy, having recently induced the accounting firm Price Waterhouse to remain in the city by granting it a multi-million-dollar tax break. "The orientation is to go for the trophy rather than to open to entrepreneurs," notes urban affairs scholar John Kasarda. But the bribe-to-stay strategy does little or nothing to promote genuine economic growth and job creation.




Quote:

The character of neighborhoods declined as broken windows went unfixed and petty criminals and disorderly people went unchecked. Punishing criminals was out; fighting "root causes" was in. "Every effort to improve life in America?s ?inner cities? is an effort against crime," said the President?s Crime Commission in 1967. As social spending increased along with excuses, incarceration rates and the length of prison sentences plummeted. Not surprisingly, 1964 proved to be, as Charles Murray put it, "the takeoff year" for crime. The crime rate tripled between 1964 and 1980, and most of this increase was concentrated in central cities (see chart). By 1970, a low-income central-city resident was more than four times as likely to be a victim of crime than a middle-income suburbanite, and a study by Arnold Barnett at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that a person living in a large American city ran a higher statistical risk of being murdered than a World War II infantryman had of being killed on the battlefield.




It is Saturday Night and I am drunk. If my quotes seem disjointed or have peaked your interest click the link and read the article. I wanted to try to cut it down to size and note some interesting points.

I live in an urban environment, so topics like this interest me. We have government schools. They suck. We have government housing. It sucks. We have government jobs programs. And people don't have jobs, even though unemployment is at historical lows.

I really think that if the government just got the fuck out the private market could correct the problem. Is the private market the answer to all of life's questions? Probably not. But is it a better answer than our government? You bet your fucking ass.

You try living next to government housing. You try sending your kids to inner city government schools. The government needs to get the fuck out of the equation. Big government is the great equalizer. It makes us all fucking stupid and dependant. Lyndon Baines Johnson can kiss my ass. I am going to find out where he is buried and piss on his fucking grave.

I just read my preview of this post. I don't think my excerpts make any sense for a general purpose. Add that to the fact that my "excerpts" alone go on for pages and pages. Nobody with a sane mind should read this post. I am drunk. Oh, and fuck you and your mother if you don't like it.

Other than that, have a nice day.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4149761 - 05/08/05 12:11 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

lol, I see this kind of stuff every day. The funny thing is that everyone living in their high-rise condos and in the suburbs think everything is going great and they feel very good about themselves because they support liberal policies. How could the poor suffer with liberal policies in place, right?

The reality is that the whole system in Chicago is breaking down. The housing authority had to tear down the projects because they were so hazardous to the citizens. Now they bus people out to the higher income areas and give them free $200,000 condos in what they call "urban development".

Schools are shutting down so fast that parents can't even keep track of where their child is attending. The worst part is that the schools are being shut down because they aren't up to Chicago standards, which are some of the lowest in the country.

It really doesn't help that all the public work in our city goes to the Mayor's cronies who make about $40/hour...but he's mayor Daley and he's a liberal so no one will ever defeat him here.

Minneapolis is thinking of requiring licenses for pan-handling. Yes, begging for money is now going to be officially recognized as a job. Gone are the days of telling perfectly phisically fit and capable beggers to "get a job", they already have one...asking for 25 cents to make a phone call.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4149914 - 05/08/05 12:54 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Steven Hayward, a Bradley Fellow at The Heritage Foundation




:rotfl:...next time..try posting a report from exxon-mobile that says that solar-powered cars can make you grow extra arms on your buttocks...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,378
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: Annapurna1]
    #4149979 - 05/08/05 01:23 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

Can't fault the data, so fault the source, eh?


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,378
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4150004 - 05/08/05 01:28 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

I highly doubt that you can attribute all of the modern urban problems to mere "Liberalism".

Society is far more complex and interwoven than any one political ideology. To think or say otherwise is both misleading and foolish.


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: trendal]
    #4150069 - 05/08/05 01:53 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
I highly doubt that you can attribute all of the modern urban problems to mere "Liberalism".

Society is far more complex and interwoven than any one political ideology. To think or say otherwise is both misleading and foolish.




Of course thats true. I am basing this only off the very liberal city where i live. Everyone here acts like everything is going great and the general social policies are the best possible. Meanwhile, program after program is crumbling and going under while our poverty and homeless rates are sky-high.

Anyone who dares mention conservatism as a solution is immediately disregarded as elitist and class war-mongerers. I just find it ironic that these same liberals are living in $4000/month high-rise apartments while the homeless are living in the subways underneath, feeding off their garbage.

Its not the ideology itself but the resistance to change that really angers me. When something doesn't work, you need to try something else instead of just going into denial.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: trendal]
    #4150093 - 05/08/05 02:03 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
I highly doubt that you can attribute all of the modern urban problems to mere "Liberalism".

Society is far more complex and interwoven than any one political ideology. To think or say otherwise is both misleading and foolish.



I think where liberal policies tend to fail is they act like they act like they can make money and jobs come out of nowhere by setting a minimum wage and rent controls. Liberals don't understand economics. Conservatives do somewhat, but use it to their own advantage.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibletrendalM
point of inflection
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 19,378
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: Catalysis]
    #4150184 - 05/08/05 02:36 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

Its not the ideology itself but the resistance to change that really angers me. When something doesn't work, you need to try something else instead of just going into denial.

We're in 100% agreement, there :smile:


--------------------
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
But you feel it;
You've felt it your entire life.
That there's something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there....
Like a splinter in your mind...
Driving you mad.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: trendal]
    #4150750 - 05/08/05 07:27 PM (11 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
Can't fault the data, so fault the source, eh?




in this case..the source automatically makes the data worthless...and  this is easy to demonstrate ..

Quote:

While the fiscal irresponsibility of urban liberalism was evident early on, it was the moral irresponsibility of liberalism that would leave its deepest and most lasting damage on urban life. Taxes and spending can be cut by a determined municipal administration, but restoring the moral order of a city requires more than City Hall?s willpower.




the article asserts that liberals are "fiscally irresponsible" because  we tax and spend...not surprisingly..it fails to mention that conservatives borrow and spend..and the current neocon administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in world history...so i guess bush must be a liberal :rolleyes:...

and BTW..this is what the neocons' idea of "moral responsibility" looks like ..



and thats just one sentance out of the diatribe too.. the others are no different...

moreover..the overall theme of blaming the "war on poverty" implies that creating poverty is the answer..which is ludicrous...the neocons have been doing it ever since reagan..and it has obviously not solved the problems of the inner cities...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: Annapurna1]
    #4150762 - 05/08/05 07:32 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Annapurna1 said:
so i guess bush must be a liberal :rolleyes:...



Well, he certainly isn't a conservative.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: Silversoul]
    #4150773 - 05/08/05 07:36 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

no..hes a neoconservative...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineMushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/03
Posts: 10,378
Last seen: 2 years, 3 months
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: Annapurna1]
    #4151418 - 05/08/05 11:06 PM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

moreover..the overall theme of blaming the "war on poverty" implies that creating poverty is the answer..which is ludicrous...the neocons have been doing it ever since reagan..and it has obviously not solved the problems of the inner cities...






Umm.. no.

Blaming the War on Poverty does NOT MEAN THAT WE LIKE POVERTY

It means that we disagree with the ways and means that the "War on Poverty" has taken to solve the problem.

What you just did was typical liberal blabber. Again. "If you don't agree with us, YOU HATE PEOPLE YOU BABY EATERS!"


--------------------
i finally got around to making a sig
revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might
grar.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblez@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: Annapurna1]
    #4152100 - 05/09/05 01:51 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

Annapurna1 said:
in this case..the source automatically makes the data worthless...and this is easy to demonstrate ..




Then please do.


--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleAnnapurna1
liberal pussy
Female User Gallery
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: z@z.com]
    #4152248 - 05/09/05 02:51 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

duh..read the rest of the post...but if your fool enough to believe what some assinine neocon stink-tank like the heritage foundation has to say about liberals..then be my guest...


--------------------


"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblecarbonhoots
old hand

Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism’s Urban Legacy [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4155495 - 05/10/05 01:05 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Wow.

I am amazed.

No, really.

This was a great post. A great article...from such a neoconservative perspective...

To say that 'broken cities' and all the poverty within them has something to do with efforts to legislate to workers and to a lesser extent, everyone, some kind of share of the economy actually causes poverty is one of the best examples of confused thinking I've seen in a while.

FDR was a long time ago, and his policies had a lot ot do with creating a large and secure middle class in America. His policies have been under attack, mostly since Ronald Reagan's days...that's what causes broken cities.

Just look at some of the European countries, or to a lesser extent, Canada, with their social democratic economies. They have way less poverty and homelessness. And no one loses their house cause they can't pay for their medical bills.


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: trendal]
    #4176965 - 05/15/05 03:13 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
I highly doubt that you can attribute all of the modern urban problems to mere "Liberalism".

Society is far more complex and interwoven than any one political ideology. To think or say otherwise is both misleading and foolish.




Society is far more complex than any one political ideology. That said, the Great Society has had an impact on the United States for four decades now, and its impact is still being felt today. Social programs and government spending exploded. Even though those programs did little to cure the ills, and in fact incentivized them, those programs have expanded and become entrenched over time.

Take a look at the black population of the United States. Ever since "The Great Society" coupled with "The War on Poverty", the black community has collapsed.

Black literacy rates have fallen. Black unemployment rates have fallen. The Black family has disintegrated. And the crime and incarceration rates of blacks have skyrocketed. This is precisely what the Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, and the War on Poverty was supposed to eliminate. Those were in fact liberal programs. Those programs have in fact be an abject and utter failure. So while every situation is complex, those specific policies have done more harm to society than good.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDirtMcgirt
in a pinch
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2,213
Loc: city of angels
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4177004 - 05/15/05 03:28 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

This is precisely what the Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, and the War on Poverty was supposed to eliminate. Those were in fact liberal programs.




Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the civil right movemtent about desegragation and true equal rights for blacks? I think liberal ideology had nothing to do with it and to call the civil rights movemtent detrimental to the black population seems kinda dense.

Quote:

Black literacy rates have fallen. Black unemployment rates have fallen. The Black family has disintegrated. And the crime and incarceration rates of blacks have skyrocketed. This is precisely what the Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, and the War on Poverty was supposed to eliminate. Those were in fact liberal programs.




I think you better source this ranting. You can't blame the fall (supposing such a fall exists) of the black family on liberal policy. You might as well blame AIDS, sunburns, and plate tetonics on liberals too.

I highly doubt black literacy has fallen in the past 35 years. source, source, source.


--------------------
"And we, inhabitants of the great coral of the Cosmos, believe the atom (which still we cannot see) to be full matter, whereas, it too, like everything else, is but an embroidery of voids in the Void, and we give the name of being, dense and even eternal, to that dance of inconsistencies, that infinite extension that is identified with absolute Nothingness and that spins from its own non-being the illusion of everything."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism’s Urban Legacy [Re: carbonhoots]
    #4177018 - 05/15/05 03:33 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

carbonhoots said:

To say that 'broken cities' and all the poverty within them has something to do with efforts to legislate to workers and to a lesser extent, everyone, some kind of share of the economy actually causes poverty is one of the best examples of confused thinking I've seen in a while.




I think that you hit the crux of the matter. You think that it is a good idea to try and legislate to everyone a share of the economy (that you think that they should have). You want to take money from me and give it to somebody else so they can have a share.

I have no idea why anyone thought that could work. For one thing, who has that knowledge? What should my "share" of the economy be? What should yours be? What share should Bill Gates have? What share should a crackhead have?

And what if I spend my share? Do I get another share tomorrow because I now have no share? How many times do you have to play God before you realize that it doesn't work. If everyone was given equal wealth today, tomorrow some would have less and some would have more. Think about the injustice of it all!

Maybe your dad saved money and left it to you, maybe your buddies dad died in debt. You don't deserve that money, you buddy deserves his share.

Some people can make $25,000 a year and attain weath by saving and investing. Others can make the same amount and go bankrupt multiple times by spending all they make and more. The person who saves their money and invests it is taxed to give the person with an identical income who spends a "share". I would be all for sharing if I was a pathetic leech on society.

Quote:

carbonhoots said:

FDR was a long time ago, and his policies had a lot ot do with creating a large and secure middle class in America. His policies have been under attack, mostly since Ronald Reagan's days...that's what causes broken cities.

Just look at some of the European countries, or to a lesser extent, Canada, with their social democratic economies. They have way less poverty and homelessness. And no one loses their house cause they can't pay for their medical bills.




FDR didn't create the middle class, and he didn't create the most successful nation in the world. He inherited it. He did little for the economy and was saved by the war. None of his policies got us out of the depression, the war did. Don't fool yourself.

As for the "people in poverty" in your socialist democracies, the average European lives below the defined American poverty level. Some fucking utopia you have going there.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Re: Broken Cities: Liberalism?s Urban Legacy [Re: DirtMcgirt]
    #4177027 - 05/15/05 03:38 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Quote:

DirtMcgirt said:

I think you better source this ranting. You can't blame the fall (supposing such a fall exists) of the black family on liberal policy. You might as well blame AIDS, sunburns, and plate tetonics on liberals too.

I highly doubt black literacy has fallen in the past 35 years. source, source, source.




My source was a book by Thomas Sowell


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineJesusChrist
Son Of God
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
Liberal Democrats Have Destroyed The Black Community [Re: JesusChrist]
    #4177028 - 05/15/05 03:39 AM (11 years, 6 months ago)

Here is the text of the that post that I gave as my source. It was a book that I read by Thomas Sowell. This was my original post:

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Economist Walter Williams has often claimed that well intentioned liberals have done more damage to the black community that hundreds of years of slavery, oppression, and Jim Crowe laws.

I am reading a book by Thomas Sowell entitled "The Quest for Cosmic Justice". Sowell is a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is a conservative economist in the proud tradition of Milton Freidman. Here are a couple of passages. I have no link, I have to retype it. Sorry for any typos, they are mine and not his.
Quote:



In the United States, for example, many of the social problems of the contemporary black underclass are almost automatically attributed to "a legacy of slavery." The prevalence of fatherless families in the black ghettos, for example, has been widely explained by the lack of legally constituted families under slavery. But if one proceeds beyond plausibility and guilt to actually seek out the facts, an entirely different picture emerges.

A hundred years ago, when blacks were just one generation out of slavery, the rate of marriage in the black population of the United States was slightly higher than that of the white population. Most black children were raised in two-parent families, even during the era of slavery, and for generations thereafter. The catastrophic decline of the black nuclear family began, like so many other social catastrophes in the United States, during the decade of the 1960s. Prior to the 1960s, the difference in marriage rates between black and white males was never as great as 5 percentage points. Yet, today, that difference is greater than 20 percentage points- and widening, even though the nuclear family is also beginning to decline among white Americans....






Here is a comment from Sowell on historical black employment.

Quote:


The fact that large numbers of black Americans today who are not in the labor force has also been one of those things causally (and often rather casually) attributed to slavery. But again, if we go back a hundred years, we find the labor force participation rates among blacks were slightly higher than among whites, and remained so, on past the middle of the twentieth century. If we want to know why this is no longer so, again we must look to events and trends much closer to our own time.






The black nuclear family has been virtually disintegrating since the 1950s. Black rates of employment have deteriorated since the 1950s. Black literacy rates have also suffered a steady and disastrous decline since the 1950s. How did this happen? Because well intentioned, "morally superior" liberals wanted to help them though social welfare legislation. If anyone else has a rational explanation, I would like to hear it.

On the anniversary of 60's Civil Rights legislation, you don't have to go far to hear liberals and black activists saying things like, "It was a great step, but so much more needs to be done." Looking at the disastrous effects of their programs, one has to ask liberals if they think that they have already done enough.

The great thing for liberal policies during the past 4 decades is that their programs are self sustaining to an extent. The War on Poverty created more poverty, so why not throw some more money at it? Surely the only reason we weren't winning was because the programs were under funded! In spite of all empirical evidence, the solution was always to spend more and not less.

Big Government is always the solution to these people. John Kerry is a 1960s new left liberal himself. He wants to make health care a right of every American. After seeing the great success of government housing and government schools, we should all be chomping at the bit for government healthcare.

For 4 decades we have pursed Great Society policies, and we have created an undisciplined, uneducated and violent black underclass whose first reaction is to stick their hand out while complaining of injustice. Liberals have convinced them that the evil white man, not personal responsibility, is the cause of all of their problems. There is a firm entrenchment in the entitlement community that government can solve their problems.

Conservatives are often painted as racially intolerant, if not outright racists. Black conservatives like Thomas Sowell are often accused of being sell outs or Uncle Toms. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas has been vilified as a traitor to his own people. Colin Powell was called a "House Nigger" by one liberal activist. Just for saying things like I have said, some people would be glad to paint me as racist, intolerant, or "mean spirited".

"Mean Spirited" is my personal favorite. Somebody can come to a liberal with an argument that is based upon rational thought, sound logic, and empirical evidence. Their response to that is "You are a big meanie." Now if that doesn't raise the level of discourse and cut to the heart of the problem!

All the evidence is out there. The Great Society has failed us as a nation. It is all over but the crying.


--------------------
Tastes just like chicken


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Most Liberal City continues Death Spiral lonestar2004 1,369 16 08/18/05 02:11 PM
by lonestar2004
* Brokaw says 1960s' legacy still unknown Bridgeburner 488 1 11/28/07 06:34 PM
by vividavis
* Reagan's Shameful Legacy Vvellum 399 3 06/10/04 03:43 AM
by Baby_Hitler
* School Choice and Urban Sprawl JesusChrist 382 0 11/02/05 12:14 AM
by JesusChrist
* Liberal Democrats Have Destroyed The Black Community JesusChrist 1,370 5 08/05/04 03:53 PM
by JesusChrist
* How is it possible to be conservative?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
MisterKite 3,427 91 03/07/06 08:27 PM
by Dmonikal
* An Explanation for Third World Poverty lonestar2004 851 10 08/23/05 02:53 PM
by Tao
* Liberal politicians hate those uppity blacks. luvdemshrooms 389 1 11/03/03 07:24 PM
by luvdemshrooms

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,484 topic views. 1 members, 3 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.168 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.