Skip to main content

This question should have an easy, straightforward answer, but for years I've been unable to get one, or to figure it out. The aftermath of Katrina gives reason to ask it here.

Conservatives believe that lower taxes and smaller government are good for the economy, because the more money there is in private hands, the more money gets spent and invested. The spending and investing create more commerce, which creates more jobs, which not only directly (thru trickling down) benefits more people, but also ultimately generates more revenue for government.

My question, though, is this: since higher taxes and bigger spending by government still constitutes spending, isn't that money in the stream of commerce anyway? If it's being spent, it's still generating jobs & commerce... right? What difference does it make, purely from an economics standpoint, whether it's the private or public sector doing the spending? As long as the money's in the flow of commerce, the benefits should still trickle down, right? Why is this not the case, since conservatives believe it's not?

C-Feed? It's your time to shine...
____________________________________________________
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Vox:


My question, though, is this: since higher taxes and bigger spending by government still constitutes spending, isn't that money in the stream of commerce anyway? If it's being spent, it's still generating jobs & commerce... right? What difference does it make, purely from an economics standpoint, whether it's the private or public sector doing the spending? As long as the money's in the flow of commerce, the benefits should still trickle down, right?


Supply-siders will argue that money can be more efficiently and effectively spent in private hands than by the government. In reality, the opposite is probably true since every time a dollar changes hands in the private sector someone takes their "cut" out of it.

BTW - the reality of SSE is that it does not work. The record deficits of the Reagan era have only been surpassed by those of the Bush one. IMO SSE is an illegitmate and dishonest facade for limiting government involvement (i.e. regulation etc.) and taxation so that the rich can get richer.
For the record I think you're right, MBM, and the dishonesty is laid bare in the whole notion that the system leads to increased revenue for government to use. The problem there is that I've never heard a supply-sider who was happy with a system generating more revenue for government. That money is never intended to benefit the poor, or society at large, the way I see it.

But hopefully this commentary does not discourage an answer to the question itself, from an actual proponent of this economic theory.
IHMO, the SS'ers beef with large government is not governments spending, but rather, how government is spending. In fact, the SS'ers encourage some forms of government spending, e.g., funding for industry research, spending for private contractors, etc. It is only the "bad spending" that SS'ers oppose, e.g., social and regulatory programs.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:

IHMO, the SS'ers beef with large government is not governments spending, but rather, how government is spending. In fact, the SS'ers encourage some forms of government spending, e.g., funding for industry research, spending for private contractors, etc. It is only the "bad spending" that SS'ers oppose, e.g., social and regulatory programs.


So true. In fact, the Bush tax cuts can be viewed as a type of government spending in and of itself. Beyond that, how much are we spending in Iraq? ek
Had this type of conversation on another board. After some research by Dell Gines (aka HiRez) this info. was found:
quote:
According to an investigative report title The Politics of Presidential Spending by RW Bradford, at LibertyUnbound.com, the so-called ˜Conservative Republican Presidents' indeed have lead the charge on increasing federal spending...

...Prior to 1970, Republicans indeed had the ability to criticize the Democrats for being the big spending party. When a Republican president held office, spending marginally went down, and when a Democrat held office, spending went up. But Mr. Bradford said these spending patterns can be thrown out the window post 1970. According to him and his analysis of the data on spending patterns:
    "In the twelve years that a Democrat has sat in the White House, spending has increased at an average rate of 1.29% per year; during the 22 years of Republican presidencies, government spending has risen at an average rate of 2.12%. In other words, spending has grown 64% faster when a Republican sits in the White House than when a Democrat does.

    The simple fact is that during the past 34 years, government spending has grown significantly faster when a Republican has sat in the White House."
http://www.dellgines.com/?p=108

http://www.libertyunbound.com/archive/2004_11/bradford-spending.html

So, yes, it's not a matter of how much money but how the many is used and WHO... WHO benefits from it. Poli. Sci. 101
Vox:

I am honored that you value my opinions so. thanks (This sentence will be used in a future attack by Nmaginate. I can just feel it now).


My PERSONAL belief is for the APPROPRIATE amount of taxation and having it AS CLOSE TO HOME AS POSSIBLE.

I have no preconscieved notions of "small government" / "low taxes" and I am not a "Conservative". This word means little to me.

It is TOTALLY LOGICAL that Black people being a voting minority will lose control of our money when we send it up into a pool that is controlled by someone else.

The TWO SIDED APPROACH that I support is

1) Have the money to support the services that you expect from government to be KEPT AS CLOSE TO HOME AS POSSIBLE

2) Make sure that you have the local economic engine to SUPPLY THE FUNDS TO MAINTAIN THE STANDARD OF LIVING THAT YOU DESIRE

When you count on another man's industriousness to furninsh the funds that you need to live up to a certain common standard of living then you will be working in HIS "industry/factory" rather than YOUR OWN.

(Why do you all attempt to pigeon hole me just because I dare to ask you questions and not "go with the flow" because this is what a Real Black is supposed to do? I am not attempting to be "mainstream" but "effective".)
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:

(Why do you all attempt to pigeon hole me just because I dare to ask you questions and not "go with the flow" because this is what a Real Black is supposed to do? I am not attempting to be "mainstream" but "effective".)


You're being extremely intellectually dishonest. That is a huge pet peeve of mine. You're being dishonest because you know that I, of all people, do not believe in "towing a line." If Vox is able to "pigeonhole" you as conservative, it's because you clearly demonstrate a preference toward conservatives. You always, always, always defend President Bush, and non-liberal white people, but you never defend black people or liberals. You're so wrapped up in promoting this idea of "not being a black fundamentalist" that you allow your ideological motivations to cloud every analysis you come up with.

Now, when somebody asks a serious question about conservative philosophy, you suddenly whip out the "I'm not conservative" card. Oh well, I tried...
quote:
You always, always, always defend President Bush, and non-liberal white people, but you never defend black people or liberals.



Why is it that you don't make the same demand of a MBM or a Kevin or a Fine or a Noah?

By the way I DON'T "Always Defend President Bush". Do you think that as a Black man who have lived for as long as I have that I don't see the "Proper Way To Think" that runs through our community?

In my view YOU ALL "Attack Bush" at ever corner where as I attempt to start with an objective position - I am critical where necessary and I question YOU ALL when I see flaws in your talking points.

FOR EXAMPLE - Today it was announced that Bush has suspended the "Davis-Bacon Act". This was a JIM CROW ERA regulation that was advanced by WHITE RACIST UNIONS in the North that was created to THWART the flood of BLACK SOUTHERN LABORERS entering northern construction markets, driving wages down and putting the WHITE FOLKS out of jobs.

I posted where the Black Chamber of Commerce has been working for some time to PURGE THIS RACIST LAW off of the books for years.

Now, however that B. U. S. H. has suspended the act in the context of getting the Gulf Coast back on it's feet - THE HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE BLACK CIVIL RIGHTS COMMUNITY is lost and another ATTACK ON BUSH is waged because he is attempting to exploit laborers with "minimum wages" - which the person making the allegation has no proof of.

So what should I say Vox? I saw the issue of Davis Bacon come up during Black History month of this year and found it interesting that this old, dusty law is now back in the news. Me echoing the long held position of the Civil Rights Movement is my "defending Bush"?

I don't think so.

What do you say about the numerous people who post the wildest Conspiracy Theories on this board in the middle of a tragedy only to have much of them refuted when the dust settles? Should I ignore the fact that certain posters have a habit of doing this as they execute their ideological agenda, holding them up as credible sources of news or should I be silent - going along to get along?


Here is the key Vox - if certain people and their economic and political activities were actually EFFECTIVE rather than simply soothing to your own biases then their GOOD WORKS would show up as advancements for the Black community. Instead we have SOME politicians who do a good job fighting outside demons as they preside over a district that is crumbling right before their eyes. Should I be pacified that they are good on the attack or should I look at the complete picture that this person brings to the table, noting that some people "hate their enemy more than they love themselves and their people"?
quote:
Here is the key Vox - if certain people and their economic and political activities were actually EFFECTIVE rather than simply soothing to your own biases then their GOOD WORKS would show up as advancements for the Black community.



* What do you call the rising college enrollment and graduation rates for 30 years fostered by Affirmative Action (which I support) versus the repeals of AA which fostered declining rates (which you and the black cons support)? Don't you see rising enrollment and graduation rates as an advancement for the black community (which I supported via policy) versus the repeal which was soothing to YOUR biases yet no effective because it reduced those enrollment and graduation and professional inclusion numbers? Do you see how I have just explained my policy stance versus yours in the context of effective versus soothing....as YOU presented as a concept? That is a example of the why the shit you say does not match the shit you support....you really have flawed reasoning CF....on da real........
quote:
What do you call the rising college enrollment and graduation rates for 30 years fostered by Affirmative Action (which I support) versus the repeals of AA which fostered declining rates (which you and the black cons support)?


I call that a need to FIX THE HIGH SCHOOLS THAT THEY CAME FROM BYTCH.

THEN maybe MORE BLACK KIDS than the numbers that you clasp onto WHILE YOU IGNORE THAT THOSE FIGURES are still WOEFULLY BELOW the rate of THE TOTAL NUMBER of Asian kids and White kids that attended college.

You see Kevin - You aren't fooling me. You FEAR that Black people are not going to do what WE NEED TO DO to PRIORITIZE ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE for our children above all else. As a result you CLEAVE on to the mediocre results of AA and actually FIGHT FOR AA THAN FIGHTING FOR ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE.

I operate on the equation - IF THE BLACK COMMUNITY WANTS TO TRANSFORM INTO A PEOPLE THAT ON AVERAGE HAS A HIGH STANDARD OF LIVING/QUALITY OF LIFE THEN we must start doing things in greater measure and STOP doing certain things.

If people can't see the fundemental difference between Kevin in I you never will.

Please note that Kevin's proposal invovles a CHANGE IN THE GOVERNMENT.

My proposal invovles a CHANGE IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY.

Please tell me which one will be more enduring?
Which one can you take with you if you choose to relocate after being "Sick and tired of being sick and tired"?
Which one can you tranfer to other countries such as Haiti and Liberia as you form a bridge with other people around the world?

Kevin says that I represent the White man's positions. In truth it is KEVIN that represents the view of mediocrity for Black people and the inability to put the Black community in line with our ultimate goals.

It is his "ability to attack" that he hides behind.
What difference does it make, purely from an economics standpoint

The differences are huge. We've all heard of the $400 toilet seat fiascos. In addition to the freedom from normal business constraints of efficiency and accountability, as the government 'produces' nothing, there is also the potential for abuse of power.

But keeping this strictly on 'economic terms', the best way to explain this are with examples, so I'll take a stab at making it easier to comprehend:

We need government and that means taxes. But when we think about government spending, and the taxes needed to finance its spending, we should also think of the effects of taxation.

Suppose I hire you to repair my computer. The job is worth $200 to me and doing the job is worth $200 to you. The transaction will occur because we have a meeting of the mind. Now suppose there's the imposition of a 30 percent income tax on you. That means you won't receive $200 but instead $140. You might say the heck with working for me - spending the day with your family is worth more than $140.

You might then offer that you'll do the job if I pay you $285. That way your after-tax earnings will be $200 - what the job was worth to you. There's a problem. The repair job was worth $200 to me not $285. So it's my turn to say the heck with it.

This simple example demonstrates that one effect of taxes is that of eliminating transactions and hence jobs. But politicians have what economists call a zero elasticity vision of the world. They think people will behave after taxes just as they behaved before taxes and the only effect of a tax is to bring in more revenue. Here's a question for you: would we and society be better off if you and I agreed to the repair job but not tell anybody? I'd say yes but we'd be criminals.

Here's another tax question: which worker receives the higher pay on a road construction project: a worker moving dirt with a shovel or a worker moving dirt atop a giant earthmover? If you said the guy on the earthmover, go to the head of the class. But why? It's not because he's unionized or that employers just love earthmover operators. It's because he's more productive and the reason is that he has more capital (tools) with which to work. In general, the more capital workers have to work with, the higher their pay.

So what's a good policy for higher wages? One is to keep the cost of capital formation low so companies will do more of it. Policies that raise the cost of capital formation and lower risk-taking are: high corporate income taxes, low allowances for depreciation, and capital gains taxes. Those who want to see higher productivity gains and higher wages, of which I'm one, should champion tax reductions.

How in the world can tobacco companies survive and remain profitable in the wake of punitive taxes, penalties and court settlements? If the government and the courts imposed these multi-billion dollar sanctions on the beef industry, it would have been long gone. The answer's easy. Corporations do not pay taxes, penalties and settlements. A subject area in economics, called the incidence of taxation, says that the party upon whom a tax is levied does not necessarily pay the tax. They might shift it onto some other party. That's precisely what corporations do. They are merely tax collectors.

In the case of tobacco, the punitive taxes, penalties and settlements are shifted forward to consumers in the form of higher prices; thus, government has punished smokers much more than tobacco companies. If the government made a similar attack on the beef industry, it would be out of business. Why? There are many substitutes for beef that consumers would turn to whereas there're few substitutes for tobacco. Imposition of oppressive taxes on goods having few substitutes is standard fare for government. King George III did it with the Intolerable Acts (Stamp Tax, Tea Tax, and others). But not for long.

-
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Constructive Feedback:


Please tell me which one will be more enduring?
Which one can you take with you if you choose to relocate after being "Sick and tired of being sick and tired"?


The reality is that personal change without structural change is futile. There were plenty of Negro League baseball players who were good enough to play in MLB but who were prevented from doing so by the structural context in place at the time that prevented them from competing. There are still strucutural changes required to even the playing field and allow the personal changes that are also required within the African American community to be most productive. Why are you so focused on personal change yet give the government, and white America generally, a pass on doing the things that are required of them? Don't you believe that America will be a better country when it has expunged all remnants of discrimination and racism throughout society? Without regard to whether you believe that a realistic goal, don't you think America should strive for that?

This country was built on racism and discrimination against African Americans. American society, for 400+ years, was built on the notion that we were somehow sub-human. This permitted an entire ethos of behaviors and attitudes - the remnants of which are with us today. So, America discriminates for 400 years. Do you really think that a paltry 40 or so years of affirmative action can really compensate for the previous 400? Is that realistic or even logical?
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by JanesT:

We need government and that means taxes. But when we think about government spending, and the taxes needed to finance its spending, we should also think of the effects of taxation.


In your opinion, how do the benfits of government intervention/action balance against the costs? For example, without the government, many tens if not hundreds of thousands of people would be dead now in the gulf region from the hurricane. Americans don't want to pay taxes, yet expect certain services from their government when in need.

Also, from a business standpoint, government (particularly under GWB) is a tool of business. Business (sometimes) pays taxes, but government opens markets, levies tarrifs etc. against foreign competition, subusidizes certain markets/products, etc. Cheney's energy policy meetings at the begining of their administration - no doubt - wasn't about how the evergy companies can do more for the government. The Iraq War, IMO, is largely about American economics.

IMHO - it seems like government is working great for the wealthy and those in big business. It reduces personal taxes and has facilitated policies which enable greater revenue and profit. Furthermore, to some companmies - like Haliburton, Bechtel, etc. - the government is an extremely lucrative source of business. This is Robin Hood reversed - taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

So - I guess I see where you are coming from theoretically, but it seems that government seems to be working just great for some.

Thoughts?
quote:
Originally posted by JanesT:

There are still strucutural changes required to even the playing field

Such as?

-


In education, affirmative action acknowledges the uneven way that education is available to Americans. As with gender, it notes that race has traditionally been a barrier to equal opportunity. AA is a tool to attempt to counter that.

In hiring, affirmative action counters the illegal bahaviors of (mostly) white males who without the guidance of government - would hire people just like them - ignoring often better qualified people of color and women.

There are significant differences between average net worth of white families and African American families in this country. Home ownership is the most powerful way that families enter the middle class and acquire assets. While white families have had the ability to own property in this nation "forever", black families were prevented from doing so not only through slavery, but after through Jim Crow. The average net worth disparity would not exist if black families had been able to earn a living, purchase and pass on property since 1619.

Beyond that, "red lining" was practiced by many banks - preventing black families from getting the credit needed to purchase homes/property. Acknowledging that this wrong has occurred and creating a program to counter it is the right thing to do. It represents a structural change that government can initiate to correct a past wrong.

To be clear, the racism and pathology against African Americans that was/is felt in America was codified in its laws. We have eliminated many of the most egregious examples of this, but we are not done. CF and others look at continued efforts to push government to evolve as "pandering to the white man". He would have us continue to swim upstream against the tide of discrimination that still exists. Doesn't what happened recently in New Orleans describe in crystal clear High Definition technicolor that there is a difference in how America responds to black folk in need? Since we live in a white country with white institutions and white's in power - I'm not sure how we are to get anything done if we don't address those aspects of America which have suppressed our pursuit of life, liberty, and happinness.

BTW - reparations is another fundamental example of something the government can do to return the past investment that slave descendants made in the economy of this nation
Last edited {1}
You can still have laws, and government does nothing but act as an expensive middleman in most enterprises.

To force racial discrimination, which is what affirmative action actually is doing, was a worthwhile attempt to bring more black folks into the economy and improve their living conditions. The argument against it is that it may not have been the best way to do so, or not best today, since you examine poverty levels and academic achievement after all this time and have to recognize that in some ways we've regressed, not progressed.

Black families have disintegrated since its inception, academic achievement is nothing to brag about, and closely tied to academics and living habits is upward mobility. We progress slowly, but how to quantify whether affirmative action is beneficial, or possibly destructive, is yet to be demonstrated. My personal view is that it helped initially, but that its returns have diminished over time. I know it causes resentment and division. And success is rarely something any government can thrust upon a society, just doesn't work that way.

My answer was for vox, lets see if topic is clearer to him now.

-
quote:
The reality is that personal change without structural change is futile.
In truth, CF's idea is like someone who says, "I would have never been a slave," as he castigates individual Blacks for structural conditions imposed on them. So, the basis of his logic would have us believe it was the individual slave's fault for being a slave. I mean, they could have all ran away or pulled a Nat Turner move. Some did, so they all could, right? (Believe it or not, I've heard that type of reasoning...)

Now, CF will pretend, profess that there is still "racism" but no part of his conception speaks to structural racism. Anytime he speaks about racism he speaks about individual and personal type of instances. Either that or silly stuff that existed under some former White Supremacy Regime (Jim Crow or Slavery).

The odd thing is, he speaks in terms of change within the Black Community which is both personal and on a larger, more systematic, cultural and systematic level. So it's not that he can perceive of things beyond a personal level. He just happens to have WHITE BLINDNESS in that regard; again, blaming the proverbial slave for slavery. In this case... modern day African-Americans for STRUCTURAL INEQUALITIES that persists.

Yes, some slaves found a way to "freedom". When Manumission was enacted, even more... So, by CF's logic with those types of avenues are enough to disregard the structural problems that existed even then because ultimately one could say slaves in those situations could have taken more personal iniative or even more cooperative, corporate (i.e. collective) iniative.

Oh and in those instances?
Which was more effective and more enduring and had the greatest effect?
Government Change? Or Internal Black Community Change ONLY?

Speaking of logic... The history doesn't even support CF's notions. The rhetoric might sound good but it is hardly logical.

Basic science tells you in order to properly study or figure out the character of something under a desired stimuli or enviroment that you must control for outside influences or stimuli or enviromental factors outside of the one you're testing for. It is completely against all logic and science to, as said, focus strictly on Black personal and Black Community change yet give the government and white America generally a pass because by doing so you have spoiled the test enviroment. What the Black Community and individuals do in that scenario can't properly be seen as those things that are characteristic of the Black Community because there are no controls established.

In fact, Kevin's advocacy of AA is a proof of what a measure of controlling White STRUCTURAL Racism can do. The rank contradiction of CF's logic comes in when he propose from a specious premise that "more Blacks would be better qualified" for colleges with his approach (without substance, just rhetoric). But he has never addressed how he is guilty of the same "DEPENDENCY" on White Colleges he castigates Kevin for vis his AA advocacy.

Nowhere has CF unveiled a PRACTICAL plan or even an unrealistic notion of what a greater number of better educated Black students K-12 were going to do with their better education that would not be "dependent" on White Institutions. So the rhetoric rings hollow when he violates the very thing he castigates others about.

quote:
Ummm.... better or greater number of quality educated Blacks (K-12) are going to go through what colleges?

It's just sad when people speak with double-edged swords...

Again, the rhetoric might sound good but that has little to do with sound, logical, historically supported, scientifically correct analysis.
In the spirit of my new found consciousness in the wake of the great victimization that Black people have suffered - I agree with you Nmaginate.

The Black man is powerless at the hands of the White man and the system that he has created over the past 400 years of global domination.

A slave can only work inside of the context that he is allowed to work within.

We need to be talking about powers and principalities rather than individuals and their choices.

What good is personal responsibility when the system strikes out against you?

Structural racism trumps any feable attempt that the Black community can produce to counter it.

The White man has injured us. It will be the White man who will fix us and restore us.
quote:
To force racial discrimination, which is what affirmative action actually is doing, was a worthwhile attempt to bring more black folks into the economy and improve their living conditions.
This is BS rhetoric. When did AA become "racial discrimination" that was, as you suggest, not "worthwhile"?

When did AA change in its character where it once was non-discriminatory or acceptably discriminatory to the point to where it is now, in your conception... unacceptable?

The point is, you are just saying so idiotic BS which you have no way of logically sustaining. If AA is "racial discrimination" now, it always was so because it definitely has not changed to the point to where it became more aggressive in its attempt to "level the playing field". It has been constantly under attack since its inception and steadily chipped away at from Day One... well, even before then.

So, no, this BS ass conventional idea that AA was okay at some point but now isn't has no logical basis because you and none of the people who take that position can ever point to the point when AA changed from being acceptable to unacceptable in terms of how the character of AA came into question or rather changed for the "worst"...

quote:
The argument against it is that it may not have been the best way to do so, or not best today
It "may" not have been? Besides your own slowness (i.e. you apparent ignorance or disregard of arguments that have always said AA was not the "best way"... as if MBM or Kevin have said it is, which they have not) notwithstanding, this idea of yours does not establish how AA is "racial discrimination" and also does not suggest what is better or "best" today or even yesterday.

You will note, there were always critiques of AA that always said it could only do but so much. You will also note that none of those Black Critiques adopted absurd White Notions that AA was "racial discrimination." Those ideas were logically consistent and simply said AA was, at best, anemic in the overall scheme of things and would benefit the Black middle and upper class. So your odd comments have said nothing new and have tried to mesh idiotic WHITE SPEAK in the midst of your opposition to AA.

Again, you can't logically sustain the idea that yesterday AA was "good" and now, all-of-sudden, its bad because it suddenly became "racial discrimination" when it wasn't before -- even though it has not changed in character at all in that sense and you can't show and haven't presented info. to demonstrate how it has.
quote:
  • Black families have disintegrated since its inception...

  • We progress slowly, but how to quantify whether affirmative action is beneficial, or possibly destructive, is yet to be demonstrated.
  • Talking about shit you can't logically sustain... WHY THE CONTRADICTION?

    At first you declare what has happened since the inception of AA, obviously trying to associate negatives with AA or its lack of effectiveness in preventing those negatives -- Black Family "Disintegration"... Then you say we have no way of knowing whether AA is good or bad in terms of its effects.

    Please make up your mind.

    quote:
    My personal view is that it helped initially, but that its returns have diminished over time.
    And this says nothing about what caused its effectiveness to "diminish". Likewise, it says little about the expectations placed on AA and whether those expectations then and now are realistic ones.

    quote:
    I know it causes resentment and division.
    And, once again, the anger or ire of White folks is legitimated. "Resentment and division" among WHOM? On the basis of WHAT??

    Again, when did AA become "racial discrimination"? Again, I contend that it has not changed in its character, especially not in terms of being more encroaching. But I guess AA would be okay with you if White Folk liked it. It is White Opinion that has undergone so sense of a change on AA and not AA itself. White conceptions of AA made it "racial discrimination" following this curious line you presented when AA has essentially been the same yesterday and today.

    So, really, the real question comes in with the fickle nature of White Opinion or just how the truth about feigned positions and tolerance comes out.

    Yes, historically Whites have professed to be for equality but, as with cases of School Busing, when it comes to some real or perceived sacrifice from Whites themselves then that's when the "Negroes are asking for too much". Funny how those where the same White attitudes MLK had to deal with. Hmmm... Funny how he didn't acquiesce to them since there was "resentment" and "division" obviously noted here:
    quote:
    "Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up."
    And oh my... whatever could have been the "preferential" or compensatory treatment he was talking about and the resentment/resistance to it then?

    quote:
    And success is rarely something any government can thrust upon a society, just doesn't work that way.
    More BS rhetoric... When the government outlawed Slavery, obviously it wasn't thrusting the opportunity for more Black success. Slavery should have been sustained then because the government should have never thought or been tricked into thinking ending Slavery would help the nation and Black people be more successful... You idea is the most historically refuted...
    "The reality is that personal change without structural change is futile"

    Structural change was defined primarily as prolonging affirmative action, presumably to bring more blacks into the mainstream, which then is seen as a structural change. Picture some of the folks you've seen in the hood, perhaps a welfare mom or someone who hasn't finished school or has a long rap sheet, and lives day to day. This is not everyone by any means, but there are plenty like that.

    Would that person be a good candidate for say the CEO of General Motors, or the high school principal of the school your children attend? You might say, well no, cause they haven't received an education.

    Knowing public school is free, you say why then did he drop out of school the way he did or get busted with dope, or why did she make a baby at fifteen and ruin her chance at academic achievement and credentials? Black dropout rates are staggering, and growing. Kids having kids is beyond anything in history. These are behavior related.

    Are we not both required to change ourselves personally if structural change is to be brought about? Can we continue having young unmarried moms with under-supervised children, and expect that they'll be meeting the rigors of education, discipline, and training that upward mobility requires? Will there ever be actual structural change without first changing the behaviors that plague so many in our community?

    "Structural change without personal change is an impossibility" Why? Because without personal change in many, there's noone around to effect the structural changes. Do we need or desire black teachers in our schools? Did they have time to wait around for structural change before becoming teachers? Or is it THEY who are going to effect the most profound structural changes by passing on their qualities and lessons to the next generation?

    So you see, always be wary of 'one line cliches' and such, they are rarely the answer or full story.

    -
    JanesT:
    quote:

    To force racial discrimination, which is what affirmative action actually is doing, was a worthwhile attempt to bring more black folks into the economy and improve their living conditions.


    Where was your concern about racial sensibiliies when Black people were being denied employment?, a seat in the school of their choice?, cover from the government because they are Americans?, police protection?, the right to express their vote?, a fair jury of their peers?

    America has always been about race, front and center.

    If the current progressive policies that those who care about Black folks have us to receive REPARATIONS drop by drop THEN SO BE IT!!

    We didn't ask to come here. We were brought here to work.

    Now they don't want to employ us and they are stuck with us.

    I have a RIGHT to the American Standard of living and it is the obligation of the government to lift me up to this standard, regardless of how much they don't like doing it.

    We may not be healed in the process but we damned sure are going to be recognized!!!
    Actually, the World has been about race, front and center. It has been here that the greatest stand against it has taken place.

    Where was your concern about racial sensibiliies when Black people were being denied employment?, a seat in the school of their choice?

    Wasn't born yet. Neither were you.

    it is the obligation of the government to lift me up to this standard

    No, actually it is not, at least it should never be. Freedom takes balls, get a pair.
    I don't want government who placed me here interfering any further. I can see what needs be done without being told by government. How long do you expect to wait for 'gubment' to make you strong? Its likely that I dont' have that kind of time.

    -
    We are still living the legacy of our racial past.

    Bush didn't get wealthy simply because the people who was in his past, his father's past and his grand daddy Bush's past. They set up the system and profited from it just as they are doing now.

    The fact that you weren't born yet doesn't mean that the events of the past did not lead to the environment that you were born into.

    So is the case that what you do now will impact the Black child born 3 generations from now. We can only force the White man to abide by the rules for Black people to have a chance in this world.
    I'm not living anything from the past. And those I found in my environment, all had black faces. Whatever problems we had, came from those with black faces. I wasn't born in no surburbia where parking tickets are a cause to swear about the government.

    There are FAR too many black success stories I can point to right now for me to wait around for this magical 'chance' you dream about someone giving you someday. It won't come from outside yourself.

    If you worry about future generations, start with all these clowns running around getting young girls pregnant. THOSE children are doomed, and so our the generations that carry their behaviors with them.
    The same FORCES that can SNATCH AWAY Black Dreams can also make the night mare to END.

    We have been living the American Nightmare for centuries. Now you are pissed that AA introduces BLACK CONTROL DISCRIMINATION and you all of a sudden have a problem.

    The White Man opened up the box of racism and he needs to close the Pandora's box.
    quote:
    "Structural change without personal change is an impossibility" Why? Because without personal change in many, there's no one around to effect the structural changes.
    This is some stupid ass reasoning completely disconnected from anything said here.

    Ummm.... those who are primarily responsible for implementing the structural change mentioned here by MBM, etc. are those who hold the reigns of gov't, etc.

    quote:
    Do we need or desire black teachers in our schools? Did they have time to wait around for structural change before becoming teachers? Or is it THEY who are going to effect the most profound structural changes by passing on their qualities and lessons to the next generation?
    Completely disconnected rhetoric. The only ones with idiotic EITHER OR reasoning are you and CF. Structural changes as presented by MBM, etc. do not preclude a Black teacher, teaching... What does a Black teacher and what she teaches have to do with AA? Besides the fact that she/he may have been assisted by AA in obtaining his/her teaching credentials? LOL...

    quote:
    So you see, always be wary of 'one line cliches' and such, they are rarely the answer or full story.
    Why how ironic... Your reasoning hardly goes beyond the cliche and hardly tells the full story, not to mention actually staying on the point or saying something relevant to AA.

    Your question asking, commenting without reciprocating responses privileges are REVOKED!

    quote:
    There are FAR too many black success stories I can point to right now for me to wait around for this magical 'chance' you dream about someone giving you someday. It won't come from outside yourself.
    More rhetoric... More cliche type rhetoric. So Slavery was dismantled completely from within. However you want to look at it, logic and your point does not align.

    And funny how the cliches are the strongest points of your rhetoric.
    CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK to Janes T:
    quote:
    We have been living the American Nightmare for centuries. Now you are pissed that AA introduces BLACK CONTROL DISCRIMINATION and you all of a sudden have a problem.
    CF, what's all of a sudden and most suspect is how, in Janes expressed opinion, AA was okay initially and apparently not "racial discrimination" until White Folks said so.

    You know, once White Folks "resent" and feel something causes "division" then it does. White sentiments are always legitimate and to be legitimated.
    you haven't live any nightmare, and if you think you are then your just nuts.

    Never stated I had any problem with AA, thats your prejudice and insecurity talking. Even stated I thought it a good idea. But hanging onto it into eternity is not my idea of being progressive.

    There are no more laws to create, its all been done. The idea of perpetual government maternity just isn't my bag, its taken us as far as its going to. Some of us have listened to the exact same rhetoric you write on for years now, nothing new, nothing helpful, little progress.

    There is no need for hostility in your tone, that will not make your points or views any more valueable or credible. If I think there's more we can do as a people, or that there are better ways to achieve wants and needs, then I will state them no matter what you think. Poor Nmaginate is so fearful he couldn't express it all in a single hate post. But when you fear expression and the exchange of ideas, and lash out at others who are not marching in your line it means you are not confident in what you say. Theres nothing persuasive in that, no prize to win.

    Rant on brothers, we got plenty of time.

    -
    quote:
    If I think there's more we can do as a people, or that there are better ways to achieve wants and needs, then I will state them no matter what you think.
    And obviously you have no concept of "better" ways... All you have is WHITE ADOPTED RHETORIC which we have heard for years. Nothing new on that front.

    You can't even explain how it is you feel AA was okay initially and, then, I would presume not "racial discrimination" but somehow progressed or descend into "racial discrimination" as it returns (which you have not quantified at no time) became less and less.

    As stated so far, you have expressed your issues with AA strictly on WHITE TERMS. Again, you call it "racial discrimination", the source of Resentment and Division. Now, can you substantiate how that shit is legitimate or am I right in saying you're just mimmicking WHITE SPEAK?

    The holds true because you have nothing to say. You can't logically sustain how AA "helped" and was okay initially but now say it is "racial discrimination" with that being part of your rationale for not "holding onto it for eternity".

    Please learn how to make an argument your damn self especially if you're going to dare talk about what's persuasive in others. I could give a fuck what your opinion is but that weak shit that you and I both know you can't substantiate is not going to just be taken at face value or even valued on GP. Just because it's different.

    And so you too will cry about "hostility in tone" instead of having anything to say on the actual subject and how what I've said (or what CF has said to you) is somehow logically flawed.

    BTW, MBM nor KEVIN "marches" in my line, in accords to my ideology, let alone CF. So please find another excuse, another angle in attempts to cover your weakness.

    Again, your question asking and diatribe making privileges have been REVOKED. Time for you to reciprocate some shit around here and substantiate the shit you say instead of think that shit is suppose to fly on GP. As if it's suppose to be accepted at face value.

    You said:
    To force racial discrimination, which is what affirmative action actually is doing...

    Now you want to cry "hostility" when you're challenged to substantiate that BS. "Poor Nmag...?" No pathetic ass Janes T. You got caught spouting WHITE RHETORIC and know you don't have anything that can logically sustain such a BS "line" of reasoning.

    And if your idea that there are "far too many Black success stories" is an expression of how you feel then that shit hardly jives with this "we've regressed, not progressed" rhetoric you spouted when you were so full of your White (Rhetoric Professing) Self.

    If "we've regressed"? Where are the success stories coming from?
    quote:
    In the spirit of my new found consciousness in the wake of the great victimization that Black people have suffered - I agree with you Nmaginate.
    Just another great statement of your weakness.

    As all told you boy SCOTT... All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to change and transform the Black Community in the way you try to hold others to. Personal Responsibility doesn't even translate into Black Collective improvement. There is just no such automatic correlation. And this is all the more proof that you don't have a clue or can't even begin to articulare the degree of transformation, etc. Personal Responsibility is going cause.

    So, instead of an actual substantive argument... out of all things you hope more RHETORIC can do the trick for you.

    Just as all the personal responsibility taken under Slavery and Jim Crow didn't "transform" the Black Community into whatever the hell you think it should be (some more rhetorical, non-descript, unstated BS), without both personal responsibility and systematic change then you are only deluding yourself. Now, you can champion personal responsibility all you want but when you go so far as to say personal responsibility, in and of itself, will not only correlate to a change in the overall Black Collective conditions but also somehow transform the "dependency" on Whites when you have never presented a serious position, platform or an agenda where White institutions, etc. won't be used (i.e. by default, you still feel like Blacks will have use White Colleges, obviously) then you contradict your damn self, fatally flawing the shit you try to profess.

    quote:
    Structural racism trumps any feable attempt that the Black community can produce to counter it.
    You have never presented Personal Responsibility or any such thing as a counter to structural racism. Please, try again.

    quote:
    The Black man is powerless at the hands of the White man and the system that he has created over the past 400 years of global domination.
    Hyperbole will get you nowhere. Too bad the torment of your weak ass positions have you acting like a powerless pimped bitch!

    Hmmm... Funny how you seem to selectively understand or allude to what the Minority Status without systematic, democratic change does to the "non-mainstream" voices, positions, etc. Funny how you play the B-Con's Et Al Are Powerless Against The Majority (in the Black Community) position when it suits you.

    7) Democratic infrastructure

    Hmmm.... Funny how that is.

    Pure "majority rule" is a threat to... ever imposing proven EFFECTIVE changes..."

    You have a very selective issue with "majority rule"... Hmmm... Majority Rule that comes with a PROVEN HISTORY of oppression though (White Majority Rule) somehow doesn't draw your ire. Interesting...

    quote:
    A slave can only work inside of the context that he is allowed to work within.
    Dude, when you argued against Kevin's advocacy for AA and then turned around and suggested Blacks would be better prepared K-12 to go, by and large, to WHITE COLLEGES then you are working within that same context and not presenting anything that's outside of the system. PERIOD!

    Empty ass RHETORIC will get you nowhere...

    quote:
    We need to be talking about powers and principalities rather than individuals and their choices.
    Again, only the DUMBASSES here speak in terms of EITHER OR, European type thinking. Individualism, the ideology that it is, is so, so European. Hmmm..... But then you dare try to speak about "CULTURE"... You're a joke dude...

    quote:
    What good is personal responsibility when the system strikes out against you?
    More IDIOTIC, Either Or BS...

    The two are not mutually exclusive and, as such, hardly opposites. They both can and do co-exist. And, historically speaking, the greatest change and transformation has come with systematic changes. Your position, as stated, is indefensible. Of course, that's why you resort to shenanigans like this...

    quote:
    The White man has injured us. It will be the White man who will fix us and restore us.
    Well, the laws of Responsibility and Accountability would require whoever broke something to fix what they broke. You do believe in Responsibility and Accountability, don't you?

    Or is that shit just selective?
    The answer is obvious...

    RHETORIC MAN, the Depthless Wonder, Strikes OUT Again!
    Last edited {1}
    OK JanesT, I understand the theory, and it does have application, but it also has some pretty sharp limits. First off, in your first example, the theory assumes that the repairman doesn't want to feed his family, and it also assumes that the owner doesn't want to get his computer fixed. It seems to me that, since just about everyone who works is subject to income tax, every computer repairman's charges are going to reflect his tax burden. So the customer is going to have to pay the extra (reasonable) cost to someone, unless he just doesn't want to have a computer. I agree that at a certain point it's no longer worth it, but worth has a way of creeping back into the fold when it becomes impossible to obtain a product or a job at less cost. The theory doesn't do a good enough job, to me, at taking that into account.

    Also, a comparison of the flood-preparedness of New Orleans and Amsterdam, along with their relative tax burdens, makes me wonder why the tax burden in this country doesn't come with the same feeling that our money is working for us that it apparently does in other countries. In other words, if you know you're paying taxes on a product, or yielding taxes on income, but that those taxes will yield certain benefits (i.e., enhanced federal efforts at protection from flooding, a la high-tax Amsterdam), it seems to me that would be easier to swallow having to pay taxes. Do you believe there's a reason why, in America, there's less of this feeling than in other countries?

    (I bet MBM has an idea why, but what about you?)
    quote:
    you haven't live any nightmare, and if you think you are then your just nuts.


    I am spiritually connected with my ancestors and their dreams that were stolen from them as they watched as the White man treated them like animals. I live their nightmare.

    They lived each day of their life being stranded at the New Orleans Convention Center. This system must pay for what it did to make Black people victims, for hurting our minds and stealing our culture.

    The White man must pay. The sooner he realizes this the better.
    Its ok not to agree with it, but I hope I cleared up the argument/issue for you.

    the theory assumes that the repairman doesn't want to feed his family, and it also assumes that the owner doesn't want to get his computer fixed.

    The repairman can do the repair, but cannot lose money doing it, so has a minimum he can charge. The owners want their computers fixed, but cannot pay an unlimited amount to do so. Lower the cost to the repairmain, he can offer his services more cheaply, more people can afford his services, and thus more computers get fixed, more transactions and business occurs, which allows room for more repairman, which then means more people with money to spend......

    I think you get the picture.

    Have you seen the current unemployment rates in other countries vox? Do a little research, you'll think you are living in the garden of eden here. I kid you not.

    -
    quote:
    As all told you boy SCOTT... All the personal responsibility in the world isn't going to change and transform the Black Community in the way you try to hold others to. Personal Responsibility doesn't even translate into Black Collective improvement. There is just no such automatic correlation. And this is all the more proof that you don't have a clue or can't even begin to articulare the degree of transformation, etc. Personal Responsibility is going cause.



    I agree with you now NMAGINATE and you still are hating on me.

    I can admit to being WEAK and vulnerable. We all are.

    It is the job of the government to protect us and for the longest it has been the government that has been the main vehicle used to attack Black people. I am only approaching things from a different angle with my new found consciousness.

    You say yourself that we are products of the environment that is handed to us.

    For so long the "maze" that has been offered to Blacks in this country to make use of their "personal resonsibility" has been plastered with quicksand pits such as drugs and crime and poor schools, housing projects that were dens of crime.

    The maze that the White man operates in is very different. They are expected to rise up to the top and thus the system works to show them the path way through their maze.

    Or jobs as advocates for civil rights is to make sure that we all operate in the same maze. If you fail by your own making you may attain less but then we need a strong social safety net to make sure that no American is destroyed by his own decisions in the context of the conditions that society has created.

    Add Reply

    Post
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×
    Link copied to your clipboard.
    ×