Why Do Black Conservatives Scare Liberals?

[insein]

Same here, insein. I like the concept of the Constitution as something more than a quaint little book of suggestions.

I prefer to think of the constitution as the solid stone document that supports this nation, NOT a living document that can be changed on the whim of a judge.

 

[Gunny]

The neocons like yourself won't let the welfare recipients recieve more than they do now.

Let's imagine that the neocons aren't balanced out by the lefties. What happens to the inner city poor citizens? You put them in sweatshops making Chinese wages. Then you don't give them medical care, you don't educate them, and you don't feed them. All of this b/c they are forced to take jobs under the table to survive (similiar to the immigrants).

Since you're against unions, forget them being fully for their survices.

I noted in a later post you labellled yourself a "libertarian." All I can say is HARDLY.

And second, did you read what you just said before posting it? Give, give, give. Well GIVE me a break.

No one can be denied medical care, and people who DO have medical insurance foot THAT bill.

Education is free, compliments of property owners.

If you cannot get your own food, it also is free through various Fed and state agencies, that bill being foot by taxpayers.

No one is forced to take a job "under the table" except, in your example, someone who has entered this Nation criminally and shouldn't be here to begin with.

The point is, those of us that work foot the bill for all the above. I could move up a notch on the social ladder neighborhood-wise if I could keep all the money I earn.

So WHAT are you complaining about?

 

[Annie]

I noted in a later post you labellled yourself a "libertarian." All I can say is HARDLY.

And second, did you read what you just said before posting it? Give, give, give. Well GIVE me a break.

No one can be denied medical care, and people who DO have medical insurance foot THAT bill.

Education is free, compliments of property owners.

If you cannot get your own food, it also is free through various Fed and state agencies, that bill being foot by taxpayers.

No one is forced to take a job "under the table" except, in your example, someone who has entered this Nation criminally and shouldn't be here to begin with.

The point is, those of us that work foot the bill for all the above. I could move up a notch on the social ladder neighborhood-wise if I could keep all the money I earn.

So WHAT are you complaining about?

Not that I'm asking YOU Gunny, but I'll bet you give more, $ for $ than the government does to 'those poor people' from the money they take from you. If your total tax bill is say $8k, perhaps $900 is to go to 'poverty' programs. After administration costs, I bet only $300 goes, if we're lucky. Not efficient, not compassionate. Yeah, same goes for military expenditures and the like, difference is, THAT is and should be what the government does-it's reason for existing.

As for caring for the 'poor', if you give $100 to your local homeless shelter, you can nearly be sure that all of it will be spent on food, from sources that have been cajoled by volunteers to give them discounts, breaks, donations, etc., making that purchase go a whole lot further...

Bottom line, if the government got out of the 'assistance business' private charities would and could pick up the slack, with better results. Jane Addams set the way, then the government decided 'force' would be better.

 

[Annie]

I prefer to think of the constitution as the solid stone document that supports this nation, NOT a living document that can be changed on the whim of a judge.

Ok, we both float somewhere under the 'conservative' 'libertarian' umbrella. You think a totally literal interpretation of the Constitution, I'm a bit more flexible, considering that there were 13 states and a lot of fighting amongst them.

I come down on the idea that the Constitution needs to be and has been 'flexible' enough, thanks to its brevity, to accomodate the changes in the makeup of the country, people, and technology. There is a difference though between interpretation and wishful thinking. This is a joke:

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_07_02-2006_07_08.shtml#1152132800

Eugene Volokh, July 5, 2006 at 4:53pm] 0 Trackbacks / Possibly More Trackbacks
Channeling the Framers, Justice Stevens' Way:

I was just rereading the Supreme Court's most recent campaign finance / free speech case, and was again struck by these paragraphs at the end of Justice Stevens' opinion. Vermont law (among other things) limited the campaigns of candidates for state representative to spending $2000 for the primary and general election campaigns combined. The law allowed higher limits for other races, including statewide races, but even those limits would be unconstitutional under Buckley v. Valeo. Justice Stevens argued that these restrictions should be upheld against a First Amendment challenge. Most of his argument focused on the practical effects of these limits, but he closed with this:

One final point bears mention. Neither the opinions in Buckley nor those that form today’s cacophony pay heed to how the Framers would have viewed candidate expenditure limits. This is not an unprincipled approach, as the historical context is "usually relevant but not necessarily dispositive." This is particularly true of contexts that are so different. At the time of the framing the accepted posture of the leading candidates was one of modesty, acknowledging a willingness to serve rather than a desire to compete. Speculation about how the Framers would have legislated if they had foreseen the era of televised sound-bites thus cannot provide us with definitive answers.

Nevertheless, I am firmly persuaded that the Framers would have been appalled by the impact of modern fundraising practices on the ability of elected officials to perform their public responsibilities. I think they would have viewed federal statutes limiting the amount of money that congressional candidates might spend in future elections as well within Congress’ authority. [Footnote: See Art. I, § 4 (providing that the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations"); see also § 5 (providing that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings").] And they surely would not have expected judges to interfere with the enforcement of expenditure limits that merely require candidates to budget their activities without imposing any restrictions whatsoever on what they may say in their speeches, debates, and interviews.
​

There are many arguments for and against relying heavily on what the Framers thought about the provisions that they were enacting, and that the Court is now interpreting. But I wonder how helpful it is to simply engage in free-form conjectures about what the Framers would have thought, with no real documentary support.

Would the Framers have been "appalled" by modern fundraising to the point of restricting candidates' ability to spend money on their campaigns? Or would they have been "appalled" by restrictions on people's right to pool their property in order to express their views? Would they have "surely ... not ... expected judges to interfere" with restrictions on the spending of money to express one's views? Or would they have thought that laws "requir[ing] candidates to budget their activities" -- which is to say to avoid some kinds of speech in order to be able to engage in other kinds of speech -- are quintessential interferences with the freedom of speech?

Justice Stevens is "firmly persuaded" that the Framers would have taken one view. I'm sure others are "firmly persuaded" of the contrary. Perhaps there's some evidence that can point us one way or the other. But Justice Stevens doesn't cite any such evidence, other than parts of the Constitution that don't expressly speak to this (and that in any event would presumably be as limited by the First Amendment as are other grants of Congressional power).

I'm sure that Justice Stevens sincerely believes that the Framers would have thought as he does. Yet that's an easy thing to believe, regardless of the historical support, no? Many modern Americans respect the Framers of the Constitution. These modern Americans naturally think the Framers were generally thoughtful and reasonable people. Yet of course these modern Americans also think that they themselves are generally thoughtful and reasonable people. Given this coincidence, it seems very easy for us to just assume that the Framers would have shared our views on some subject, and that we share the Framers' views.

All the more reason, I think, for us to be skeptical about arguments about what the Framers would have though, or "surely would not have expected," when those arguments lack even a single citation to a Framing-era source discussing what the Framers actually seem to have thought or expected about related questions.

 

[Gunny]

Not that I'm asking YOU Gunny, but I'll bet you give more, $ for $ than the government does to 'those poor people' from the money they take from you. If your total tax bill is say $8k, perhaps $900 is to go to 'poverty' programs. After administration costs, I bet only $300 goes, if we're lucky. Not efficient, not compassionate. Yeah, same goes for military expenditures and the like, difference is, THAT is and should be what the government does-it's reason for existing.

As for caring for the 'poor', if you give $100 to your local homeless shelter, you can nearly be sure that all of it will be spent on food, from sources that have been cajoled by volunteers to give them discounts, breaks, donations, etc., making that purchase go a whole lot further...

Bottom line, if the government got out of the 'assistance business' private charities would and could pick up the slack, with better results. Jane Addams set the way, then the government decided 'force' would be better.

We spent two hole days when the Katrina victims were here, me unloading trucks and my wife babysitting. I figure our time is worth something. We also donated a grand, but to a private local charity where we knew it wasn't going to pay for the secretary's pedicure.

I get hammered in taxes. Property taxes in Texas are absurd. I have to claim Single and Zero on my W-4, plus withhold another $100 a week so I don't have to pay at the end of the year.

SO yeah, I'd say I'm footing the bill for something.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I noted in a later post you labellled yourself a "libertarian." All I can say is HARDLY.

And second, did you read what you just said before posting it? Give, give, give. Well GIVE me a break.

No one can be denied medical care, and people who DO have medical insurance foot THAT bill.

Education is free, compliments of property owners.

If you cannot get your own food, it also is free through various Fed and state agencies, that bill being foot by taxpayers.

No one is forced to take a job "under the table" except, in your example, someone who has entered this Nation criminally and shouldn't be here to begin with.

The point is, those of us that work foot the bill for all the above. I could move up a notch on the social ladder neighborhood-wise if I could keep all the money I earn.

So WHAT are you complaining about?

I said that without the lefties, that is what would happen b/c it's more profitable (conservative like) to say "everyone for themselves". That would result in people paying less taxes and the poor getting less of a chance to move up the social ladder. If the left didn't try to give these freeloaders a hand-out, then the right would give them nothing and the result would be what I described in my previous post.

The point is, both sides seem to hate eachother, but America would not be as great as it is, if one side had all the power and ran the show 100%.

 

[Gunny]

I said that without the lefties, that is what would happen b/c it's more profitable (conservative like) to say "everyone for themselves". That would result in people paying less taxes and the poor getting less of a chance to move up the social ladder. If the left didn't try to give these freeloaders a hand-out, then the right would give them nothing and the result would be what I described in my previous post.

The point is, both sides seem to hate eachother, but America would not be as great as it is, if one side had all the power and ran the show 100%.

I disagree with your analysis. I grew up poor. You only stay there if you don't go out and seize the opportunities available.

As far as freeloaders go, I could care less if they get nothing. Basically, I am penalized for their worthlessness, lack of ambition, and willingness to suck off the system you lefties have provided for them. I'd much rather I get to live in a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood than susidize someone else's laziness.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I disagree with your analysis. I grew up poor. You only stay there if you don't go out and seize the opportunities available.

As far as freeloaders go, I could care less if they get nothing. Basically, I am penalized for their worthlessness, lack of ambition, and willingness to suck off the system you lefties have provided for them. I'd much rather I get to live in a nicer house in a nicer neighborhood than susidize someone else's laziness.

How does a person move up in our society? With education. Now in my state (SC) with the lottery, anyone that tries to do well in highschool can get a scholarship to go to tech school for free. If they do well in tech school, they can transfer to a credited college and pay for it with student loans. Then they have a college education and get a high paying job, move into a nice house, start setting up a retirement fund, buy health insurance, ect....

Without us paying a lot in taxes, the education system would be weakened, resulting in lower grades for underpriviliaged students. That results in less kids getting a chance to get a college education. The kids that go to private school b/c their parents can afford it are good to go, and have been given every tool to succeed b/c their parents already had money.

 

[insein]

How does a person move up in our society? With education. Now in my state (SC) with the lottery, anyone that tries to do well in highschool can get a scholarship to go to tech school for free. If they do well in tech school, they can transfer to a credited college and pay for it with student loans. Then they have a college education and get a high paying job, move into a nice house, start setting up a retirement fund, buy health insurance, ect....

Without us paying a lot in taxes, the education system would be weakened, resulting in lower grades for underpriviliaged students. That results in less kids getting a chance to get a college education. The kids that go to private school b/c their parents can afford it are good to go, and have been given every tool to succeed b/c their parents already had money.

Public education has been instituted for over 50 years. How then do you explain kids in the inner cities having the same opportunties (free school, free food, etc) and yet they havnt taken advantage of the opportunties. They waste school and continue the cycle of poverty.

 

[OCA]

The neocons like yourself won't let the welfare recipients recieve more than they do now.

Let's imagine that the neocons aren't balanced out by the lefties. What happens to the inner city poor citizens? You put them in sweatshops making Chinese wages. Then you don't give them medical care, you don't educate them, and you don't feed them. All of this b/c they are forced to take jobs under the table to survive (similiar to the immigrants).

Since you're against unions, forget them being fully for their survices.

First off dumbass I am no neocon, check my record here.

Exactly, welfare should be reduced and eventually cutoff(except for those who are mentally or physically unable to provide for theirselves, a test would be given for determination), at the same time government would provide training for those going off the dole and incentives to employers who hire tose off the dole.

You are a typical "I can't survive without government" type, this post proves it.

 

[red states rule]

First off dumbass I am no neocon, check my record here.

Exactly, welfare should be reduced and eventually cutoff(except for those who are mentally or physically unable to provide for theirselves, a test would be given for determination), at the same time government would provide training for those going off the dole and incentives to employers who hire tose off the dole.

You are a typical "I can't survive without government" type, this post proves it.

This may be the primary reason libs hate black conservatives. They see first hand what welfare and the "give me" mentality does to people.

If people took care of their own problems and did not wait for government to take care of them - liberalism would go out of business

Then what would Dems have to offer America?

 

[Gunny]

How does a person move up in our society? With education. Now in my state (SC) with the lottery, anyone that tries to do well in highschool can get a scholarship to go to tech school for free. If they do well in tech school, they can transfer to a credited college and pay for it with student loans. Then they have a college education and get a high paying job, move into a nice house, start setting up a retirement fund, buy health insurance, ect....

Without us paying a lot in taxes, the education system would be weakened, resulting in lower grades for underpriviliaged students. That results in less kids getting a chance to get a college education. The kids that go to private school b/c their parents can afford it are good to go, and have been given every tool to succeed b/c their parents already had money.

Without us paying a lot in taxes, those kids would have the same chance as the rest of us, and they can put themselves through school if the drive is there.

I'll never understand the welfare state mentality that those who have, should be taken from so those that have not can live at the same level. That creates nothing but mediocrity because it kills any desire to excel.

 

[Annie]

How does a person move up in our society? With education. Now in my state (SC) with the lottery, anyone that tries to do well in highschool can get a scholarship to go to tech school for free. If they do well in tech school, they can transfer to a credited college and pay for it with student loans. Then they have a college education and get a high paying job, move into a nice house, start setting up a retirement fund, buy health insurance, ect....

Without us paying a lot in taxes, the education system would be weakened, resulting in lower grades for underpriviliaged students. That results in less kids getting a chance to get a college education. The kids that go to private school b/c their parents can afford it are good to go, and have been given every tool to succeed b/c their parents already had money.

I don't think SC is at the top of taxation amongst the states, for property taxes or any others. I'm assuming that the bulk of your education funding comes from property taxes, based on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20727-2004Jun6.html

Did you know that in most 'private' schools, the norm is nearly 10% on 'scholarship'? The parents DON'T have the money? Did it ever occur to you that many parents give up vacations, higher quality of food, clothing, cars, etc. to afford tuition?

Do you realize that many kids in awful schools, succeed in spite of less than the norm facilities, staff, and supplies?

Did you know that children from very affluent families, living in school districts with 'money to burn' fail?

What are the commonalities?

 

[Gunny]

I don't think SC is at the top of taxation amongst the states, for property taxes or any others. I'm assuming that the bulk of your education funding comes from property taxes, based on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20727-2004Jun6.html

Did you know that in most 'private' schools, the norm is nearly 10% on 'scholarship'? The parents DON'T have the money? Did it ever occur to you that many parents give up vacations, higher quality of food, clothing, cars, etc. to afford tuition?

Do you realize that many kids in awful schools, succeed in spite of less than the norm facilities, staff, and supplies?

Did you know that children from very affluent families, living in school districts with 'money to burn' fail?

What are the commonalities?

School taxes here are paid directly to the school district one lives in. Basically, I'm paying through the nose so my daughter could go to one of if not the best school in SA. THAT was THE major factor in living where I do.

Now that she's graduated, I need to move!

 

[Annie]

School taxes here are paid directly to the school district one lives in. Basically, I'm paying through the nose so my daughter could go to one of if not the best school in SA. THAT was THE major factor in living where I do.

Now that she's graduated, I need to move!

Same here. School taxes as far as I know in the US are based upon property taxes. Thus if you can live in a 'high tax' area, that means one where houses sell for more than average in your area.

I teach in the same county, but not city I live in. The county is well off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPage_County,_Illinois

A brick, 4 bedroom, 3 bath, with a basement home in the town I teach in sells for approx. $450k. In the town I live in the same house goes for over $700k. Why? Property taxes. We pay more per $1k of assessment for schools, library, police, fire, etc.

In our grammar school the expenditure is about $10k per child. In the high school, nearly $16.5k per child. In the public grammar school I work in, about $6k per child and high school (3) about $10k per child. Education and property values are tightly wound together. Which came first? I do know that people are paying to get into our school district, not so much the other.

Truth is, want to see the value of your home go up quickly? Pick the house you can afford in the best school district you can afford. Less house, better value. More likely to have parents of your kids friends sharing your values, regardless of income.

 

[insein]

This may be the primary reason libs hate black conservatives. They see first hand what welfare and the "give me" mentality does to people.

If people took care of their own problems and did not wait for government to take care of them - liberalism would go out of business

Then what would Dems have to offer America?

Basically what i said in my first post.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I don't think SC is at the top of taxation amongst the states, for property taxes or any others. I'm assuming that the bulk of your education funding comes from property taxes, based on this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20727-2004Jun6.html

Did you know that in most 'private' schools, the norm is nearly 10% on 'scholarship'? The parents DON'T have the money? Did it ever occur to you that many parents give up vacations, higher quality of food, clothing, cars, etc. to afford tuition?

Do you realize that many kids in awful schools, succeed in spite of less than the norm facilities, staff, and supplies?

Did you know that children from very affluent families, living in school districts with 'money to burn' fail?

What are the commonalities?

-No way can a blue collar worker with a kid afford to send him to private school. That's going to cost thousands a year. Impossible for a person living paycheck to paycheck. It doesn't matter how much they give up, there not going to afford paying thousands of $$$ every year. So the child is forced to go to public school. If they live in less than wealthy area, that child goes to a less than par school b/c the citizens aren't paying the big time property taxes, so the schools aren't getting the big time funding.

-Much fewer inner city kids succeed than do kids that attend private schools. I went to a highschool that was public, and one of the poorer schools in my state (which is already one of the worst states for education). 25% of my graduating class went on to higher education. About 10% went to universities and colleges. The others to tech.

-A private school about 15 miles away sent 95% of their graduating class to universities and colleges. They didn't bother to list the ones that went to tech, or are taking time off before college.


The corelation is: If you're parents have money to send you to private school, you're already at an advantage. If you're parents are not well-to-do, then good luck.

 

[Abbey Normal]

-No way can a blue collar worker with a kid afford to send him to private school. That's going to cost thousands a year. Impossible for a person living paycheck to paycheck. It doesn't matter how much they give up, there not going to afford paying thousands of $$$ every year. So the child is forced to go to public school. If they live in less than wealthy area, that child goes to a less than par school b/c the citizens aren't paying the big time property taxes, so the schools aren't getting the big time funding.

-Much fewer inner city kids succeed than do kids that attend private schools. I went to a highschool that was public, and one of the poorer schools in my state (which is already one of the worst states for education). 25% of my graduating class went on to higher education. About 10% went to universities and colleges. The others to tech.

-A private school about 15 miles away sent 95% of their graduating class to universities and colleges. They didn't bother to list the ones that went to tech, or are taking time off before college.


The corelation is: If you're parents have money to send you to private school, you're already at an advantage. If you're parents are not well-to-do, then good luck.

Untrue. My parents were as blue collar as they come, and they sent all of us to Catholic school. Tuition in the inner city was not outrageous and just took a few sacrifices to make. I then took out loans and worked my way through college and law school. It absolutely can be done. It takes parents (plural, hopefully) who value education, and who care about heir kids enough to instill respect for education at an early age.

And one other crucial thing: it takes parents who don't buy into the lib mentality that they are "victims" and need the government to coddle them through life.

 

[Annie]

-No way can a blue collar worker with a kid afford to send him to private school. That's going to cost thousands a year. Impossible for a person living paycheck to paycheck. It doesn't matter how much they give up, there not going to afford paying thousands of $$$ every year. So the child is forced to go to public school. If they live in less than wealthy area, that child goes to a less than par school b/c the citizens aren't paying the big time property taxes, so the schools aren't getting the big time funding.

-Much fewer inner city kids succeed than do kids that attend private schools. I went to a highschool that was public, and one of the poorer schools in my state (which is already one of the worst states for education). 25% of my graduating class went on to higher education. About 10% went to universities and colleges. The others to tech.

-A private school about 15 miles away sent 95% of their graduating class to universities and colleges. They didn't bother to list the ones that went to tech, or are taking time off before college.


The corelation is: If you're parents have money to send you to private school, you're already at an advantage. If you're parents are not well-to-do, then good luck.

You are wrong about the 'private schools' not having 'blue collar' and lower to middle class kids. I don't know about 'all private schools', but most parochial schools. In our school of approx 300 students, there are 30 attending who pay little or no tuition and many get their uniforms provided by the school.

There are many more whose parents work as hair stylists, in dry cleaners, and such. The kids do not have the latest clothes or even great shoes all the time, neither do their parents. I would say the kids are getting a very good education, BUT they are often uncomfortable being with kids that think nothing of losing an ipod or cell phone, that are very comfortable bringing expensive digital cameras to school. Now, it's not like these kids can't be 'popular' some are, very. But I'm sure it's not easy.

Last year in the 8th grade, there was only 1 student that did not have access to internet from home. Obviously since much of the curriculum is tied to research, this put her in a bind. We have laptops at school, but we cannot allow them to leave the school, which of course wouldn't help anyways, since she lacked internet at home. I would let her come in up to 45 minutes early, work on computer during lunch, phys ed, and send her to the lab during 'homework time' if she needed to. If she asked, we tried to get her the time to finish at school.

We've had students enrolled for a few years, then there's a divorce or some other family crisis. Whenever the parents think they'll have to pull the child out because of tuition, (more often it's children), they are allowed to remain. Most of the time tuition is again being paid in a few months/years, but not always.

 

[insein]

-No way can a blue collar worker with a kid afford to send him to private school. That's going to cost thousands a year. Impossible for a person living paycheck to paycheck. It doesn't matter how much they give up, there not going to afford paying thousands of $$$ every year. So the child is forced to go to public school. If they live in less than wealthy area, that child goes to a less than par school b/c the citizens aren't paying the big time property taxes, so the schools aren't getting the big time funding.

-Much fewer inner city kids succeed than do kids that attend private schools. I went to a highschool that was public, and one of the poorer schools in my state (which is already one of the worst states for education). 25% of my graduating class went on to higher education. About 10% went to universities and colleges. The others to tech.

-A private school about 15 miles away sent 95% of their graduating class to universities and colleges. They didn't bother to list the ones that went to tech, or are taking time off before college.


The corelation is: If you're parents have money to send you to private school, you're already at an advantage. If you're parents are not well-to-do, then good luck.

Want to show some proof of these "numbers" or is it all just your personal observation, aka opinion, aka means squat?