Two cultures: Hunters and Gatherers vs Free Stuff

[Foxfyre]

Let's look at just one sad legacy of 'free stuff' and intervention, courtesy of the Federal government. Walter Williams wrote the essay excerpted below more than 10 years ago. The statistics since then are even more appalling:

. . . .Illegitimacy among blacks today is 70 percent. Only 41 percent of black males 15 years and older are married, and only 36 percent of black children live in two-parent families. These and other indicators of family instability and its accompanying socioeconomic factors such as high crime, welfare dependency and poor educational achievement is claimed to be the legacy and vestiges of slavery, for which black Americans are due reparations. Let's look at it.

In 1940, illegitimacy among blacks was 19 percent. From 1890 to 1940, blacks had a marriage rate slightly higher than whites. As of 1950, 64 percent black males 15 years and older were married, compared to today's 41 percent.

In Philadelphia, in 1880, two-parent family structure was: black (75.2 percent), Irish (82.2 percent), German (84.5 percent) and native white Americans (73.1 percent). In other large cities such as Detroit, New York and Cleveland, we find roughly the same numbers.

According to one study of black families (Herbert G. Gutman, "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom, 1750-1925"), "Five out of six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents."

That study also found that, in Harlem between 1905 and 1925, only 3 percent of all families were headed by a woman under 30 and 85 percent of black children lived in two-parent families.

The question raised by these historical facts is: If what we see today in many black neighborhoods, as claimed by reparation advocates, are the vestiges and legacies of slavery, how come that social pathology wasn't much worse when blacks were just two or three generations out of slavery? Might it be that slavery's legacy and vestiges have a way, like diabetes, of skipping generations? In other words, for example, that devastating 70 percent rate of black illegitimacy simply skipped six generations -- it's a delayed effect of slavery.

I doubt whether the reparations gang could develop a coherent theory of the generation-skipping effects of slavery. Vestiges and legacy of slavery arguments are simply covers for another hustle similar to the $6 trillion dollar War on Poverty hustle. . . .

Dispute his facts if you can. (I'll tell you now that I tried and couldn't do it.)

It is THIS kind of dynamic that I think makes it imperative for the liberal/leftist 'do gooders' to rethink what they are actually doing to people with the whole concept of 'free stuff."

I'm not going to dispute any facts, but I am curious why the stats for marriage would include 15 year olds. In most states, wouldn't a 15 year old need special permission to marry? I would think using stats for 18+ would give a more accurate view, as far as marriage is concerned.

I can't be sure without going back to read the whole essay and the background supporting it, but I am sure Dr. Williams was illustrating that even among teenagers at mid 20th Century, marriage before having children was the norm. If you read other writings by him and Dr. Sowell, both who have done exhaustive studies on the whol cultural shift and how that has affected lower income Americans, most especially the black family, they note that single parenthood is the single most significant factor by a large percentage for child poverty in the the USA, and if the single parent is a teen, child poverty is even much more likely.

 

[The T]

Let's look at just one sad legacy of 'free stuff' and intervention, courtesy of the Federal government. Walter Williams wrote the essay excerpted below more than 10 years ago. The statistics since then are even more appalling:



Dispute his facts if you can. (I'll tell you now that I tried and couldn't do it.)

It is THIS kind of dynamic that I think makes it imperative for the liberal/leftist 'do gooders' to rethink what they are actually doing to people with the whole concept of 'free stuff."

I'm not going to dispute any facts, but I am curious why the stats for marriage would include 15 year olds. In most states, wouldn't a 15 year old need special permission to marry? I would think using stats for 18+ would give a more accurate view, as far as marriage is concerned.

I can't be sure without going back to read the whole essay and the background supporting it, but I am sure Dr. Williams was illustrating that even among teenagers at mid 20th Century, marriage before having children was the norm. If you read other writings by him and Dr. Sowell, both who have done exhaustive studies on the whol cultural shift and how that has affected lower income Americans, most especially the black family, they note that single parenthood is the single most significant factor by a large percentage for child poverty in the the USA, and if the single parent is a teen, child poverty is even much more likely.

Not only was it the norm? There was a terrible stigma attached to it. (as there should be)...

As it is for being poor in a country replete with oppritunity...Ben Franklin said it best...

I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

You may apply these words to many societal issue.

 

[JDzBrain]

Tell ya what Fox. Your video of Dr. Sowell reminded me of something.

If you are looking for some additional reading on this topic, Star Parker is a good source. Don't know if you know who she is, but she's written several books on the topic and I suspect she's read a bit of Dr. Sowell. The first of her books I ran across a couple years ago was called Uncle Sam's Plantation. And NO...it's not an angry diatribe about the white man keeping blacks down. ;~)

SHE...knows the free stuff state from the inside out. Another of her books is called Pimps, Whores, and Welfare Brats and it tells her personal story of how she went from being a welfare cheat to a leading voice for the conservative black community and even running for Congress.

The lady has got GRIT!!!

Here is a link to her non profit she founded. CURE

She takes on EVERYONE on the subject. So don't be surprised to read her goring the ox someone you like is plowing behind. LOL

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh JD, thanks for reminding me of Star Parker. This amazing woman dug herself out of poverty and the government welfare plantation and has now devoted her life to point the way to prosperity for other black families. And her way does not include government programs. She was deeply involved in the welfare reform of the 1990's and was not scared off despite the liberal welfare advocates trashing her thoroughly including death threats.

She now has a step by step formula to help people escape government slavery and move into the middle class. She touches on it in this interview:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51avIprMenI]Get Government out of Welfare Now! An Interview with Star Parker - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

Then don't post on the thread if you think it is hyperbole at best. There are numerous other threads in which you can discuss the role of the unions and government internvention into various things.

This thread is about people who expect free stuff vs those who believe people should work for or pay for what they get.

Is that a concept too difficult for you? If so, hope to see you around on other threads.

Basically this is an open forum. As such..I can post where and when I please.

Yes, and you can whine about the topic when and where you please as well. And I suppose it is okay to be discourteous and intentionally disrupt a thread. I'll leave it to the moderators to allow or disallow that as I have no powers there.

But I would very much appreciate your rationale for why it is good for the government to take your money to give me free stuff.

What topic?

It's flawed.

The government does not take your money away to give other people "free stuff". That's not how it works. Even the "study" you cite is wrong. Quite probably because it does the same thing you are doing. Going in with a pre conceived notion and cherry picking data out of context to prove it.

I do find it amazing that people, who are projecting themselves as "educated", think like this.

Perhaps the whole thing is to complicated for you to understand and in reality..it is very complicated. We have a plural and complex culture. It's a very large country and very connected with the world in general. While there are some advantages to boiling down concepts and nutshelling them..it serves no good to use that sort of "analysis" as a beginning point.

Take for example your the new concept you've introduced here..that single family households arose as a result of this "dependency". Really? Seriously? The advancement of women's rights had nothing to do with that? The notion that a woman no longer had to accept a life of a abuse had nothing to do with that?

The type of thinking you are putting out there basically is the same type that stifles upward mobility because it assumes that poverty is the fault of the improvished. It's a destructive notion that is pervasive in conservative thought.

 

[editec]

Basically we have two choices:

Either we set up a system where people who work make enough to support their society and themselves; or we set up a system that makes the people dependent on the largess of a elite controlled government.


Our MASTERS have chosen the latter system because by choosing that system it gives them an inordinate amount of the nations' wealth AND it gives them power over the indigent class that they have turned so many people into.

Call it socialism if tht floats you boat or call it fascism, the fact remains that this is the system we have.

If we want to change that you can't just change a small part of it (the spending side) and leave the rest of the explotative system in place.

I know that's what many here want, but it won't work...for long.

 

[Sallow]

Basically we have two choices:

Either we set up a system where people who work make enough to support their society and themselves; or we set up a system that makes the people dependent on the largess of a elite controlled government.


Our MASTERS have chosen the latter system because by choosing that system it gives them an inordinate amount of the nations' wealth AND it gives them power over the indigent class that they have turned so many people into.

Call it socialism if tht floats you boat or call it fascism, the fact remains that this is the system we have.

If we want to change that you can't just change a small part of it (the spending side) and leave the rest of the explotative system in place.

I know that's what many here want, but it won't work...for long.

Yep.

Most here don't seem to realize many of the things we have in place is the result of a long slow evolution..not some radical overnight change.

In her video, the woman rails against public education, minimum wage and a host of other things that she construes as "dependency". Minimum wage didn't come about because someone in the government thought it would be a novel idea to crack down on factory owners. It came about because factory owners were scared shitless they were going to be killed and pleaded with government to come help them. They may not have liked the solution but it made factory workers happy..and they still kept a substantial part of the profits. Same with just about everything else.

The United States use to be a real miserable place to live. And the people that came here did so, because they had little choice. But it was social reforms..particularly around the FDR era..that lead to the country becoming so prosperous. The key was equitably sharing the wealth. That's been reversed of late..and the results sorta suck.

 

[JDzBrain]

Basically we have two choices:

Either we set up a system where people who work make enough to support their society and themselves; or we set up a system that makes the people dependent on the largess of a elite controlled government.


Our MASTERS have chosen the latter system because by choosing that system it gives them an inordinate amount of the nations' wealth AND it gives them power over the indigent class that they have turned so many people into.

Call it socialism if tht floats you boat or call it fascism, the fact remains that this is the system we have.

If we want to change that you can't just change a small part of it (the spending side) and leave the rest of the explotative system in place.

I know that's what many here want, but it won't work...for long.

Close Ed. The thing is...the founders ALREADY set up a system, "where people who work make enough to support their society and themselves..." It's a system where t he power rest with the people and our strength has ALWAYS lay with the free market system that was as EVERY BIT as much a part of the reason the founders fought to succeed from King George as was religious freedom!

That is something that too many overlook in their analysis of our founding. The struggle since the days of the first colonies against unreasonable tariffs and regulations aimed at restricting trade and commerce.

Heck, right up until the revolution, there were certain trades that could not be practiced. The tradesmen could make rough stock to be shipped to England and the finished good would be made there and shipped back OR the rough stock sold and the proceeds given to King George. Tradesmen like barrel makers and blacksmiths were only allowed to begin producing goods in the Americans after the tradesmen in England could no longer keep up with demand.

The founders and the people of the colonies didn't want a government to 'support' them. They just wanted the government to get the hell out of the way so they could do for them selves!

ALL the problems we have now are a direct result of arrogant and/or selfish people...our Masters as you call them...gaming the system to enrich themselves, either monetarily OR in power. Greedy men commit greedy acts and that doesn't just mean money!

And you right. We can't just take care of the money and fix it. We have to drive those who do not understand that power flows from the people UP and that the government is NOT a separate entity from we the people OUT of our government!

But FORCING the federal government to contract spending and get out of states pockets is a damn good start START!

Which brings us to this....NONSENSE!

Yep.

Most here don't seem to realize many of the things we have in place is the result of a long slow evolution..not some radical overnight change.

In her video, the woman rails against public education, minimum wage and a host of other things that she construes as "dependency". Minimum wage didn't come about because someone in the government thought it would be a novel idea to crack down on factory owners. It came about because factory owners were scared shitless they were going to be killed and pleaded with government to come help them. They may not have liked the solution but it made factory workers happy..and they still kept a substantial part of the profits. Same with just about everything else.

The United States use to be a real miserable place to live. And the people that came here did so, because they had little choice. But it was social reforms..particularly around the FDR era..that lead to the country becoming so prosperous. The key was equitably sharing the wealth. That's been reversed of late..and the results sorta suck.

Again, your lack of comprehension skills and understanding our history is historically staggering.

First, Ms Star is NOT railing against the public education system. She is railing against the education system that the FEDERAL Department of Education has inflicted on America. She is railing against the fact that for every million dollars the fed takes out of the state's coffers...it returns 10 thousand....AND an unfunded mandate for catholic schools to teach birth control...OR ELSE!

THAT is the point that you seem to be missing!

And people did NOT come here because they had to. They came for the CHANCE at a better life....not a GUARANTEE...a CHANCE at a life where they could actually own land, produce, sale and KEEP the sweat of their brow. A place where they WERE guaranteed an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to succeed. They came, NOT because America was the land of milk and honey, but because it WAS the land of OPPORTUNITY!!!

And the US was NOT a miserable place to live. In 1908 247 out of ever 1000 Americans owned an automobile. The next closest in ownership was France with 47 out of 1000. Yeah, a miserable place. It was and IS one of the best places to live on the planet...even if you are POOR!

And the ONLY thing the policies FDR and progressives has done is concentrate more wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Since FDR and the 'New Deal' the concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% of wage earners has gone from about 12% to 49%.

Now you tell me just how in the hell THAT is a success story for the average American!

 

[Foxfyre]

As JD responded to both Ed and Sallow much more eloquently than I would have done, I'll just say a thankful ditto to his comments.

Sallow says the topic is flawed but offers no rebuttal other than his opinion. If the topic is flawed then we have no divided culture of those who cherish values of working for what we have versus those who feel entitled to what other people have earned. He (and several others) seem to be avoiding that phenomenon as well as the reasons for it while accusing me of being ignorant and being inadequate in historical knowledge.

For instance, a post or two back he states:

Take for example your the new concept you've introduced here..that single family households arose as a result of this "dependency". Really? Seriously? The advancement of women's rights had nothing to do with that? The notion that a woman no longer had to accept a life of a abuse had nothing to do with that?

The type of thinking you are putting out there basically is the same type that stifles upward mobility because it assumes that poverty is the fault of the improvished. It's a destructive notion that is pervasive in conservative thought.

I am assuming that he meant to say single parent households instead of single family households. (The single family household is absolutely a goal in the traditional American dream.) There are a number of cultural factors that have produced the single parent household including the anti-establishment cultural revolution of the sixties that has resulted in a media and entertainment promotion of the single lifestyle as 'normal'. It applies no moral judgment or criticism of media icons who seem to put little or no value on marriage and a traditional family and who are regularly getting pregnant out of wedlock. Such people have incomes so that their children do not live in poverty. But it creates an illusion of a 'new normal' in which those without substantial incomes have no moral qualms about doing likewise.

The government encourages this by subsidizing the single parent at a higher level for every child produced. On another thread there is discussion of one woman with 15 or 16 kids, no husband, multiple fathers, and the closest thing you will find in America of abject poverty for all.

The fact remains that the single largest cause of child poverty in the USA is the situation of single parenthood and as long as the government makes it more profitable to be single than to get married, there is little chance anybody is going to rethink that.

That was the message that Star Parker was expressing in that video. So long as the government punishes good choices and responsible behavior while subsidizing bad choices and irresponsible behavior, the wide cultural divide will only increase.

 

[JDzBrain]

As JD responded to both Ed and Sallow much more eloquently than I would have done, I'll just say a thankful ditto to his comments.

LOL...I thought it was kind of clunky myself, but thanks. I could barely type for all the spittal all over the keyboard. ;~)

I'll just add that this post by you hits it dead on the head. And in everything Sallow has written, he has got one thing exactly right, this INSANITY has occurred over a long time.

They've been pecking around the edges since the turn of the last century. And as you point out, the 'new normal' that has come to be accepted as portrayed...has been GREATLY accelerated by the advent of a TV in every home and computer on every desk.

And like you, it strikes me as ironic that people who are SO EAGER to claim credit for some progressive, big government program's success at raising the minimum wage, lowering the poverty level or increasing the size of the middle class can IN THE SAME STATEMENT claim that poverty, increased teen pregnancy or government waste is inevitable.

It's asinine to keep making the argument as though you have it right in the face of all evidence to the contrary. All anyone has to do is look at the top of this page to see the 10 to 1 voting margin to understand that they may not have it right...AND give constitutional conservatives HOPE! ;~)

 

[Sallow]

Again, your lack of comprehension skills and understanding our history is historically staggering.

First, Ms Star is NOT railing against the public education system. She is railing against the education system that the FEDERAL Department of Education has inflicted on America. She is railing against the fact that for every million dollars the fed takes out of the state's coffers...it returns 10 thousand....AND an unfunded mandate for catholic schools to teach birth control...OR ELSE!

THAT is the point that you seem to be missing!

And people did NOT come here because they had to. They came for the CHANCE at a better life....not a GUARANTEE...a CHANCE at a life where they could actually own land, produce, sale and KEEP the sweat of their brow. A place where they WERE guaranteed an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to succeed. They came, NOT because America was the land of milk and honey, but because it WAS the land of OPPORTUNITY!!!

And the US was NOT a miserable place to live. In 1908 247 out of ever 1000 Americans owned an automobile. The next closest in ownership was France with 47 out of 1000. Yeah, a miserable place. It was and IS one of the best places to live on the planet...even if you are POOR!

And the ONLY thing the policies FDR and progressives has done is concentrate more wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Since FDR and the 'New Deal' the concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% of wage earners has gone from about 12% to 49%.

Now you tell me just how in the hell THAT is a success story for the average American!

First..sure she was. She's essentially advocating for home schooling. And where are you getting these numbers? Some states get back more then they put in. And who is forcing Catholic schools to teach birth control?

And yeah..people did come here because they had to. Ever hear of the Great potato famine? There were many famines in China. Additionally there were wars, persecution and a great deal many other things. Ever bother to read what it says on the Statue of Liberty?

""Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

While the US was a miserable place to live, many places in the world were far worse.

And yeah..since the New Deal..the concentration of wealth has gotten far worse. Thanks to Ronnie Reagan and the boys.

 

[kwc57]

Again, your lack of comprehension skills and understanding our history is historically staggering.

First, Ms Star is NOT railing against the public education system. She is railing against the education system that the FEDERAL Department of Education has inflicted on America. She is railing against the fact that for every million dollars the fed takes out of the state's coffers...it returns 10 thousand....AND an unfunded mandate for catholic schools to teach birth control...OR ELSE!

THAT is the point that you seem to be missing!

And people did NOT come here because they had to. They came for the CHANCE at a better life....not a GUARANTEE...a CHANCE at a life where they could actually own land, produce, sale and KEEP the sweat of their brow. A place where they WERE guaranteed an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to succeed. They came, NOT because America was the land of milk and honey, but because it WAS the land of OPPORTUNITY!!!

And the US was NOT a miserable place to live. In 1908 247 out of ever 1000 Americans owned an automobile. The next closest in ownership was France with 47 out of 1000. Yeah, a miserable place. It was and IS one of the best places to live on the planet...even if you are POOR!

And the ONLY thing the policies FDR and progressives has done is concentrate more wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Since FDR and the 'New Deal' the concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% of wage earners has gone from about 12% to 49%.

Now you tell me just how in the hell THAT is a success story for the average American!

First..sure she was. She's essentially advocating for home schooling. And where are you getting these numbers? Some states get back more then they put in. And who is forcing Catholic schools to teach birth control?

And yeah..people did come here because they had to. Ever hear of the Great potato famine? There were many famines in China. Additionally there were wars, persecution and a great deal many other things. Ever bother to read what it says on the Statue of Liberty?

""Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

While the US was a miserable place to live, many places in the world were far worse.

And yeah..since the New Deal..the concentration of wealth has gotten far worse. Thanks to Ronnie Reagan and the boys.

There are plenty of places on the planet where there is less "inequality" of wealth. Are there any in particular that you'd really care to live in?

 

[editec]

Basically we have two choices:

Either we set up a system where people who work make enough to support their society and themselves; or we set up a system that makes the people dependent on the largess of a elite controlled government.


Our MASTERS have chosen the latter system because by choosing that system it gives them an inordinate amount of the nations' wealth AND it gives them power over the indigent class that they have turned so many people into.

Call it socialism if tht floats you boat or call it fascism, the fact remains that this is the system we have.

If we want to change that you can't just change a small part of it (the spending side) and leave the rest of the explotative system in place.

I know that's what many here want, but it won't work...for long.

Close Ed. The thing is...the founders ALREADY set up a system, "where people who work make enough to support their society and themselves..." It's a system where t he power rest with the people and our strength has ALWAYS lay with the free market system that was as EVERY BIT as much a part of the reason the founders fought to succeed from King George as was religious freedom!

Any relationship our society has to the society of 1789 is long past, amigo.

That is something that too many overlook in their analysis of our founding. The struggle since the days of the first colonies against unreasonable tariffs and regulations aimed at restricting trade and commerce.

Pal, as it regards the FFs and tariffs? You clearly don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I don't expeect you take my word for it.

Look up the history of trade policies for the first 150 years this nation existed.

Heck, right up until the revolution, there were certain trades that could not be practiced. The tradesmen could make rough stock to be shipped to England and the finished good would be made there and shipped back OR the rough stock sold and the proceeds given to King George. Tradesmen like barrel makers and blacksmiths were only allowed to begin producing goods in the Americans after the tradesmen in England could no longer keep up with demand.

True. Britian was trying to prevent this nation from devbeloping its own industrial base.

Now you need to read about the history that followed that time.

What you will find is that America encouraged its own industrial base by imposing heavy tariffs on imports.

What I am telling you is that you have somehow been seriously misinformed about our nations former trade policies.

The founders and the people of the colonies didn't want a government to 'support' them. They just wanted the government to get the hell out of the way so they could do for them selves!

What the Floundering Fathers wanted was for the CROWN to get out of their hair so they could become the MASTERS of the colonies.

ALL the problems we have now are a direct result of arrogant and/or selfish people...our Masters as you call them...gaming the system to enrich themselves, either monetarily OR in power. Greedy men commit greedy acts and that doesn't just mean money!

That pretty much describes the problems of every society, so on that point we are on the same page.

And you right. We can't just take care of the money and fix it. We have to drive those who do not understand that power flows from the people UP and that the government is NOT a separate entity from we the people OUT of our government!

I think electing people who admit that they HATE the very CONCEPT of GOVERNMENT is probably not a very good idea, don't you?

But FORCING the federal government to contract spending and get out of states pockets is a damn good start START!

ACtually I think that is not a very good idea in this economic situation we are currently dealing with.

IN another economy circumstance, I'd be 100% with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

As JD responded to both Ed and Sallow much more eloquently than I would have done, I'll just say a thankful ditto to his comments.

LOL...I thought it was kind of clunky myself, but thanks. I could barely type for all the spittal all over the keyboard. ;~)

I'll just add that this post by you hits it dead on the head. And in everything Sallow has written, he has got one thing exactly right, this INSANITY has occurred over a long time.

They've been pecking around the edges since the turn of the last century. And as you point out, the 'new normal' that has come to be accepted as portrayed...has been GREATLY accelerated by the advent of a TV in every home and computer on every desk.

And like you, it strikes me as ironic that people who are SO EAGER to claim credit for some progressive, big government program's success at raising the minimum wage, lowering the poverty level or increasing the size of the middle class can IN THE SAME STATEMENT claim that poverty, increased teen pregnancy or government waste is inevitable.

It's asinine to keep making the argument as though you have it right in the face of all evidence to the contrary. All anyone has to do is look at the top of this page to see the 10 to 1 voting margin to understand that they may not have it right...AND give constitutional conservatives HOPE! ;~)

I give credit where credit is due, and you are due a lot of credit for your very excellent grasp of U.S. history and the correct interpretation of it. (Unlike a few of our other members here but they seem to be unmovably convinced of the righteousness of their perceptions and are unlikely to be easily educated.)

It is absurd to exalt progressivism as producing all that is good, noble, compassionate, and virtuous while completely dismissing or denying that progressivism is at least partially responsible for the increasing divide between rich and poor, responsible for an increasing permanently unemployable underclass, responsible for the breakdown of traditional institutions and values that made the USA the exceptional nation that it is, responsible for unsustainable trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see/

Conversely, had we stuck with the undisputable values of the Founders, we could have avoided so many of those negatives.

Some of our friends here reject that our history has any relevance to our present, that the principles that worked in the late 18th and 19th centuries are of no use to us in modern times, and we should avoid discussing the virtues of the hunters and gatherers versus those who clamor for free stuff.

 

[JDzBrain]

ACtually I think that is not a very good idea in this economic situation we are currently dealing with.

IN another economy circumstance, I'd be 100% with you.

Ed...I am NOT going to keep arguing the point with folks who are so obviously entrenched in an ideology that even the reality of history is lost to them.

However...I will point out how the last statement of your post perfectly illustrates the fallacy of that ideology.

You say that in better times you'd agree. That is EXACTLY like the first month Obama took office and pushed Congress to pass the Bush Tax cuts BEFORE IT WAS TOO LATE. Then he went on to say that with the economy teetering on the edge...NOW was not the time to increase taxes on ANYONE.

ANYONE with half a brain would ask themselves, if it's not a good ideal to do it when the economy is bad...just what in the HELL would make you think it's a good thing when times are good? It just defies ALL common sense!

This stubborn insistence on rejecting reality and substituting your own, as Adam Savage says when his theory doesn't match the reality, will NOT serve progressives well in the information age.

There are way more folks like Foxfyre who are well informed, inquisitive of nature, logical of thought...and UNFLINCHING in the face of unbridled liberal dogma who will NOT let you get away with it!

 

[Sallow]

Again, your lack of comprehension skills and understanding our history is historically staggering.

First, Ms Star is NOT railing against the public education system. She is railing against the education system that the FEDERAL Department of Education has inflicted on America. She is railing against the fact that for every million dollars the fed takes out of the state's coffers...it returns 10 thousand....AND an unfunded mandate for catholic schools to teach birth control...OR ELSE!

THAT is the point that you seem to be missing!

And people did NOT come here because they had to. They came for the CHANCE at a better life....not a GUARANTEE...a CHANCE at a life where they could actually own land, produce, sale and KEEP the sweat of their brow. A place where they WERE guaranteed an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to succeed. They came, NOT because America was the land of milk and honey, but because it WAS the land of OPPORTUNITY!!!

And the US was NOT a miserable place to live. In 1908 247 out of ever 1000 Americans owned an automobile. The next closest in ownership was France with 47 out of 1000. Yeah, a miserable place. It was and IS one of the best places to live on the planet...even if you are POOR!

And the ONLY thing the policies FDR and progressives has done is concentrate more wealth in the hands of the wealthy. Since FDR and the 'New Deal' the concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% of wage earners has gone from about 12% to 49%.

Now you tell me just how in the hell THAT is a success story for the average American!

First..sure she was. She's essentially advocating for home schooling. And where are you getting these numbers? Some states get back more then they put in. And who is forcing Catholic schools to teach birth control?

And yeah..people did come here because they had to. Ever hear of the Great potato famine? There were many famines in China. Additionally there were wars, persecution and a great deal many other things. Ever bother to read what it says on the Statue of Liberty?

""Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

While the US was a miserable place to live, many places in the world were far worse.

And yeah..since the New Deal..the concentration of wealth has gotten far worse. Thanks to Ronnie Reagan and the boys.

There are plenty of places on the planet where there is less "inequality" of wealth. Are there any in particular that you'd really care to live in?

I'm fine right here.

New York is by far the best city in the world.

 

[JDzBrain]

What the Floundering Fathers wanted was for the CROWN to get out of their hair so they could become the MASTERS of the colonies.

Oh, and just because I can't resist when people LIE about the founders...I'll say this.

If that is so...just WHY did they spend nearly 20 years in negotiations with England, trying to REMAIN a protectorate of England while colonist were being imprisoned and murdered if they wanted to "...become the MASTERS of the colonies?" Seems to me that men of unbridled ambitions would have just avoided all the crap and revolted in the first place. It's another one of those statements that DEFIES COMMON SENSE!

What was it Washington said when the delegation came to his farm and asked him to become the first president of the US...oh yeah. "Have I not yet given enough?"

Yep...sounds like the master of America to me.

Dude, the founders were men with all the frailties of men. I could fill up a book with things they did I don't agree with. But I'm not going to allow BULL SHIT to be made up and spouted as fact in some lame attempt to use revisionist crap to support ANY ideology...especially a FAILED one that is antithetical to our founding!

STOP IT!

 

[Sallow]

I give credit where credit is due, and you are due a lot of credit for your very excellent grasp of U.S. history and the correct interpretation of it. (Unlike a few of our other members here but they seem to be unmovably convinced of the righteousness of their perceptions and are unlikely to be easily educated.)

It is absurd to exalt progressivism as producing all that is good, noble, compassionate, and virtuous while completely dismissing or denying that progressivism is at least partially responsible for the increasing divide between rich and poor, responsible for an increasing permanently unemployable underclass, responsible for the breakdown of traditional institutions and values that made the USA the exceptional nation that it is, responsible for unsustainable trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see/

Conversely, had we stuck with the undisputable values of the Founders, we could have avoided so many of those negatives.

Some of our friends here reject that our history has any relevance to our present, that the principles that worked in the late 18th and 19th centuries are of no use to us in modern times, and we should avoid discussing the virtues of the hunters and gatherers versus those who clamor for free stuff.

And which "undisputable" values were those? That people with a different skin color could be bought and sold as property? That women had no rights whatsoever? That the people leading this country should only be voted in by White Christian Males with land?

Those values?

This is what I mean about cherry picking. And this is what "progressivism" is all about. It's progressing past the things that aren't worth keeping. It's also the ability to figure out when you are wrong..and what "values" are wrong.

 

[Sallow]

What the Floundering Fathers wanted was for the CROWN to get out of their hair so they could become the MASTERS of the colonies.

Oh, and just because I can't resist when people LIE about the founders...I'll say this.

If that is so...just WHY did they spend nearly 20 years in negotiations with England, trying to REMAIN a protectorate of England while colonist were being imprisoned and murdered if they wanted to "...become the MASTERS of the colonies?" Seems to me that men of unbridled ambitions would have just avoided all the crap and revolted in the first place. It's another one of those statements that DEFIES COMMON SENSE!

What was it Washington said when the delegation came to his farm and asked him to become the first president of the US...oh yeah. "Have I not yet given enough?"

Yep...sounds like the master of America to me.

Dude, the founders were men with all the frailties of men. I could fill up a book with things they did I don't agree with. But I'm not going to allow BULL SHIT to be made up and spouted as fact in some lame attempt to use revisionist crap to support ANY ideology...especially a FAILED one that is antithetical to our founding!

STOP IT!

Stop what?

Washington was a "Master". He owned slaves. So did Jefferson. In fact..he had kids with one of them.

 

[Foxfyre]

What the Floundering Fathers wanted was for the CROWN to get out of their hair so they could become the MASTERS of the colonies.

Oh, and just because I can't resist when people LIE about the founders...I'll say this.

If that is so...just WHY did they spend nearly 20 years in negotiations with England, trying to REMAIN a protectorate of England while colonist were being imprisoned and murdered if they wanted to "...become the MASTERS of the colonies?" Seems to me that men of unbridled ambitions would have just avoided all the crap and revolted in the first place. It's another one of those statements that DEFIES COMMON SENSE!

What was it Washington said when the delegation came to his farm and asked him to become the first president of the US...oh yeah. "Have I not yet given enough?"

Yep...sounds like the master of America to me.

Dude, the founders were men with all the frailties of men. I could fill up a book with things they did I don't agree with. But I'm not going to allow BULL SHIT to be made up and spouted as fact in some lame attempt to use revisionist crap to support ANY ideology...especially a FAILED one that is antithetical to our founding!

STOP IT!

Stop what?

Washington was a "Master". He owned slaves. So did Jefferson. In fact..he had kids with one of them.

Doesn't it embarrass you at all to make statements this ignorant? You do realize that Washington maintained far more slaves at Mt. Vernon than was profitable for him to maintain because he did not wish to break up families and did not trust any who bought to slaves to keep families together. Setting them free also included unacceptablew risks, to them at that tiime. By the end of the Revolutionary War he personally opposed slavery and pledged to never buy another. His will provided for the emancipation of all his slaves should they choose to leave.

Doesn't sound like ambitions to be 'master of the universe' to me, but hey, don't let the history get in the way of your misconceptions. Most of the Founders were not slave owners and did not condone slavery.