A Fulfillment of Prophecy?

[The T]

Oh you know, it was all the fault of 'the previous administration.' LOL

And it STILL is.

Which is sad because EVERY president inherits problems. The ones before Obama have turned in to fix them in the way they saw fit. I can't say I always agreed with their fixes, but they didn't spend 6 years whining that it was someone else's fault and pretending to know nothing about what is going on in the country. No one. I have never heard a single president in 65 years do that until Obama. He knew there was a mess. He claimed he had all the answers. But he didn't even understand the questions, let alone have the answers.

But he knew he had an agenda...the prophecy as Dr. Sowell, and the rest of us warned so many about. The man remains detached, NOTHING is ever his fault...but yet he wreaks havoc on everyone around him...as if he ever cared about those around him...even those in his own party...Agenda...everything...fallout NOT his fault, EVER.

 

[daveman]

Oh you know, it was all the fault of 'the previous administration.' LOL

And it STILL is.

Which is sad because EVERY president inherits problems. The ones before Obama have turned in to fix them in the way they saw fit. I can't say I always agreed with their fixes, but they didn't spend 6 years whining that it was someone else's fault and pretending to know nothing about what is going on in the country. No one. I have never heard a single president in 65 years do that until Obama. He knew there was a mess. He claimed he had all the answers. But he didn't even understand the questions, let alone have the answers.

A low-information President for low-information voters.

 

[daveman]

That's sort of where Sowell is coming from in The Vision of the Annointed, and I am intrigued how that book published more than a decade before the national advent of Barack Obama outlined, even predicted, that there would be a Barack Obama. And those 2008 essays (and several others I didn't include in the OP) is almost a fulfillment of the 'prophecy' from the book.
]
And the five years of history we now have with a President Barack Obama confirms that Sowell was on the right track.

And yes, the 'anointed' with a vision of the world that bears so semblance to practical use or reality or inescapable consequences--that which Barack Obama holds--does not leave room for other points of view or any other understanding that doesn't fit with the vision. Indeed they can see no other point of view other than what they consider the stupid ramblings of the 'selfish', 'cruel', 'heartless', and 'evil'.

That's progressives' stock in trade.

If you can't get people to voluntarily agree with you, first attempt to shame them into agreeing, or at least silence ("Racist!!"). If that doesn't work, try to bribe them (Obamaphones and "free" health care).

Next is legislating against certain beliefs. We're not quite there yet.

Finally -- and history shows this again and again -- mass graves.

And the latter sadly is history, prophecy...if allowed to happen.

Unchecked, it WILL happen.

Progressivism always ends in lakes of blood.

 

[daveman]

And it STILL is.

Which is sad because EVERY president inherits problems. The ones before Obama have turned in to fix them in the way they saw fit. I can't say I always agreed with their fixes, but they didn't spend 6 years whining that it was someone else's fault and pretending to know nothing about what is going on in the country. No one. I have never heard a single president in 65 years do that until Obama. He knew there was a mess. He claimed he had all the answers. But he didn't even understand the questions, let alone have the answers.

But he knew he had an agenda...the prophecy as Dr. Sowell, and the rest of us warned so many about. The man remains detached, NOTHING is ever his fault...but yet he wreaks havoc on everyone around him...as if he ever cared about those around him...even those in his own party...Agenda...everything...fallout NOT his fault, EVER.

Textbook example.

 

[Sunshine]

And it STILL is.

Which is sad because EVERY president inherits problems. The ones before Obama have turned in to fix them in the way they saw fit. I can't say I always agreed with their fixes, but they didn't spend 6 years whining that it was someone else's fault and pretending to know nothing about what is going on in the country. No one. I have never heard a single president in 65 years do that until Obama. He knew there was a mess. He claimed he had all the answers. But he didn't even understand the questions, let alone have the answers.

But he knew he had an agenda...the prophecy as Dr. Sowell, and the rest of us warned so many about. The man remains detached, NOTHING is ever his fault...but yet he wreaks havoc on everyone around him...as if he ever cared about those around him...even those in his own party...Agenda...everything...fallout NOT his fault, EVER.

Oh yes, he had a clear socialist agenda from the outset. I recall discussing that with some lawyer friends in Nashville. The rub came when his agenda could not and did not fix the problems he so glibly lays onto 'the previous administration' without acknowledging that the problems he found when he took office date back over SEVERAL administrations up to and including democrat administrations.

 

[Sunshine]

Which is sad because EVERY president inherits problems. The ones before Obama have turned in to fix them in the way they saw fit. I can't say I always agreed with their fixes, but they didn't spend 6 years whining that it was someone else's fault and pretending to know nothing about what is going on in the country. No one. I have never heard a single president in 65 years do that until Obama. He knew there was a mess. He claimed he had all the answers. But he didn't even understand the questions, let alone have the answers.

But he knew he had an agenda...the prophecy as Dr. Sowell, and the rest of us warned so many about. The man remains detached, NOTHING is ever his fault...but yet he wreaks havoc on everyone around him...as if he ever cared about those around him...even those in his own party...Agenda...everything...fallout NOT his fault, EVER.

Textbook example.

Preaching to the choir on that one.

 

[Sunshine]

That's progressives' stock in trade.

If you can't get people to voluntarily agree with you, first attempt to shame them into agreeing, or at least silence ("Racist!!"). If that doesn't work, try to bribe them (Obamaphones and "free" health care).

Next is legislating against certain beliefs. We're not quite there yet.

Finally -- and history shows this again and again -- mass graves.

And the latter sadly is history, prophecy...if allowed to happen.

Unchecked, it WILL happen.

Progressivism always ends in lakes of blood.

If this article by Sowell doesn't make you shiver, nothing will:

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? - Investors.com


ARE we on the slippery slope to tyranny? Depends on who you ask. Depends on who benefits from current policies.

 

[Sunshine]

Good thread, Foxy. Masterful, actually. Provocative to say the very least.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the latter sadly is history, prophecy...if allowed to happen.

Unchecked, it WILL happen.

Progressivism always ends in lakes of blood.

If this article by Sowell doesn't make you shiver, nothing will:

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt arbitrarily took the United States off the gold standard, he cited a law passed during the First World War to prevent trading with the country's wartime enemies. But there was no war when FDR ended the gold standard's restrictions on the printing of money.

At about the same time, during the worldwide Great Depression, the German Reichstag passed a law "for the relief of the German people."

That law gave Hitler dictatorial powers that were used for things going far beyond the relief of the German people — indeed, powers that ultimately brought a rain of destruction down on the German people and on others.

If the agreement with BP was an isolated event, perhaps we might hope that it would not be a precedent. But there is nothing isolated about it.

The man appointed by President Obama to dispense BP's money as the administration sees fit, to whomever it sees fit, is only the latest in a long line of presidentially appointed "czars" controlling different parts of the economy, without even having to be confirmed by the Senate, as Cabinet members are.

Those who cannot see beyond the immediate events to the issues of arbitrary power — vs. the rule of law and the preservation of freedom — are the "useful idiots" of our time. But useful to whom?


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? - Investors.com
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny? - Investors.com


ARE we on the slippery slope to tyranny? Depends on who you ask. Depends on who benefits from current policies.

Thanks Sunshine for your kind words and thanks to you and several who have made thoughtful and insightful contributions to the discussion.

As for are we on the road to tyranny, I look to another of Sowell's essays - this one published July 2012 commenting on Obama's "You didn't build that" speech - I bolded what I see as the money paragraph:

Excerpt:

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent -- Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft "nationalization."

Freedom is seldom destroyed all at once. More often it is eroded, bit by bit, until it is gone. This can happen so gradually that there is no sudden change that would alert people to the danger. By the time everybody realizes what has happened, it can be too late, because their freedom is gone.

All the high-flown talk about how people who are successful in business should "give back" to the community that created the things that facilitated their success is, again, something that sounds plausible to people who do not stop and think through what is being said. After years of dumbed-down education, that apparently includes a lot of people.

Take Obama's example of the business that benefits from being able to ship their products on roads that the government built. How does that create a need to "give back"?

Did the taxpayers, including business taxpayers, not pay for that road when it was built? Why should they have to pay for it twice?. . .

. . . .One of the tricks of professional magicians is to distract the audience's attention from what they are doing while they are creating an illusion of magic. Pious talk about "giving back" distracts our attention from the cold fact that politicians are taking away more and more of our money and our freedom. . . .
Obama's Rhetoric - Thomas Sowell - Page 1

The question remains, why was a Thomas Sowell able to see this coming back in 2008 when he tried to warn us? And why were so many incapable of seeing it? Or is it what they want too?

As he, essay after essay, tracks the history in progress in the Obama administration, we can see the fulfillment of those 'prophecies' from 2008. At still so many seem unconcerned and shrug it off or accuse people like me and others who are sounding the alarm.

 

[Foxfyre]

For instance, this paragraph from the July essay:

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent -- Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft "nationalization."​

So who does Obama and his rhetorical army work to get the people to envy or resent?

The wealthy
The business owners
The evangelical Christians
The Tea Party
Fox News
Rush Limbaugh et al
Any media that is doing its job

And we have seen as documented in the "Phony Scandals?" thread, in some way or another, Obama or his spokespeople have targeted all these groups at one time or another. By marginalizing, discrediting, or in the case of some using the government to silence dissenting voices. But too few seem sufficiently outraged so these incidents are usually just a ripple in the news cycle and are quickly buried and forgotten under more current news. And I believe that too is by intentional design. That phenomenon did not occur much during the Bush administration--anything that could be criticized or scandalized stayed on the front pages for weeks and months and was continued into this administration.

This is dangerous folks. And is almost assured that those freedoms and liberties will continue to erode, chip by chip, almost unnoticable day by day. Sort of like watching weeds grow or snow melt. You can't really see it happen but sooner or later you look out and the weeds have taken over or the snow that was there is gone.

 

[mamooth]

The differnce being that Sowell was right in his analysis.

Just as the prophet Mohammed was obviously right about the nature of God. At least that's what the members of that cult tell me. And since I haven't personally refuted the entire Koran, it must all be true.

I keep challenging the Obama disciples to take any statement - in context please- from any of Sowell's essays linked in the OP and show how he got it wrong back then. So far not one of you have done so.

And I haven't refuted the Unibomber's manifesto either. Hence, by your standards, the Unibomber is clearly a True Prophet. Spare us your avalanche o' crap tactics. Honest people will make a point concisely, instead of yelling "REFUTE MY MANIFESTO!" over and over.

I read how the Prophet Sowell makes shit up, such by claiming ACORN engaged in fraud and thuggery. That's all I need to see, that Sowell is proudly dishonest. It takes more than partisan nonsense to qualify as prophecy, so do let us know when you find something more than partisan nonsense.

 

[Sunshine]

For instance, this paragraph from the July essay:

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent -- Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft "nationalization."​

So who does Obama and his rhetorical army work to get the people to envy or resent?

The wealthy
The business owners
The evangelical Christians
The Tea Party
Fox News
Rush Limbaugh et al
Any media that is doing its job

And we have seen as documented in the "Phony Scandals?" thread, in some way or another, Obama or his spokespeople have targeted all these groups at one time or another. By marginalizing, discrediting, or in the case of some using the government to silence dissenting voices. But too few seem sufficiently outraged so these incidents are usually just a ripple in the news cycle and are quickly buried and forgotten under more current news. And I believe that too is by intentional design. That phenomenon did not occur much during the Bush administration--anything that could be criticized or scandalized stayed on the front pages for weeks and months and was continued into this administration.

This is dangerous folks. And is almost assured that those freedoms and liberties will continue to erode, chip by chip, almost unnoticable day by day. Sort of like watching weeds grow or snow melt. You can't really see it happen but sooner or later you look out and the weeds have taken over or the snow that was there is gone.

I won't comment on all these groups, but I do want to make mention of the frequency posters here use the term 'Christian terrorists.' I debunked every one except perhaps a Mormon who, IMO, it is arguable if that is even a Christian sect. Yet, they continue to refer to 'all the Christian terrorists.' It is accepted as fact that there IS such a group.

 

[Plasmaball]

you didnt debunk anything

 

[Mustang]

For instance, this paragraph from the July essay:

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent -- Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft "nationalization."​

So who does Obama and his rhetorical army work to get the people to envy or resent?

The wealthy
The business owners
The evangelical Christians
The Tea Party
Fox News
Rush Limbaugh et al
Any media that is doing its job

And we have seen as documented in the "Phony Scandals?" thread, in some way or another, Obama or his spokespeople have targeted all these groups at one time or another. By marginalizing, discrediting, or in the case of some using the government to silence dissenting voices. But too few seem sufficiently outraged so these incidents are usually just a ripple in the news cycle and are quickly buried and forgotten under more current news. And I believe that too is by intentional design. That phenomenon did not occur much during the Bush administration--anything that could be criticized or scandalized stayed on the front pages for weeks and months and was continued into this administration.

This is dangerous folks. And is almost assured that those freedoms and liberties will continue to erode, chip by chip, almost unnoticable day by day. Sort of like watching weeds grow or snow melt. You can't really see it happen but sooner or later you look out and the weeds have taken over or the snow that was there is gone.

Q. Wanna know what REALLY takes away your freedom?

A. Keepin' you poor!

In the last couple of decades, as jobs have been outsourced, wages have dropped, and it's harder to make a living wage in America. And with the price of higher education going up (Up 500% since 1985), it's harder for parents and their kids to afford an education which allows them to move up economically.

All of this pushes down wages, even as the cost of living is going up. So, what's your choice? It's to take what you're offered even as the income gap in America is widening.

The poor have less freedom and fewer choices than anyone else, and they pay more for what they manage to get. They pay higher interest rates. They pay higher prices for grocery bills if they can't drive to other stores. They pay exorbitant rates for rent, and the poverty rate is going up. Now, why would the poverty rate be going up when the rich are doing so damn well?

 

[TemplarKormac]

For instance, this paragraph from the July essay:

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent -- Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft "nationalization."​

So who does Obama and his rhetorical army work to get the people to envy or resent?

The wealthy
The business owners
The evangelical Christians
The Tea Party
Fox News
Rush Limbaugh et al
Any media that is doing its job

And we have seen as documented in the "Phony Scandals?" thread, in some way or another, Obama or his spokespeople have targeted all these groups at one time or another. By marginalizing, discrediting, or in the case of some using the government to silence dissenting voices. But too few seem sufficiently outraged so these incidents are usually just a ripple in the news cycle and are quickly buried and forgotten under more current news. And I believe that too is by intentional design. That phenomenon did not occur much during the Bush administration--anything that could be criticized or scandalized stayed on the front pages for weeks and months and was continued into this administration.

This is dangerous folks. And is almost assured that those freedoms and liberties will continue to erode, chip by chip, almost unnoticable day by day. Sort of like watching weeds grow or snow melt. You can't really see it happen but sooner or later you look out and the weeds have taken over or the snow that was there is gone.

Q. Wanna know what REALLY takes away your freedom?

A. Keepin' you poor!

In the last couple of decades, as jobs have been outsourced, wages have dropped, and it's harder to make a living wage in America. And with the price of higher education going up (Up 500% since 1985), it's harder for parents and their kids to afford an education which allows them to move up economically.

All of this pushes down wages, even as the cost of living is going up. So, what's your choice? It's to take what you're offered even as the income gap in America is widening.

The poor have less freedom and fewer choices than anyone else, and they pay more for what they manage to get. They pay higher interest rates. They pay higher prices for grocery bills if they can't drive to other stores. They pay exorbitant rates for rent, and the poverty rate is going up. Now, why would the poverty rate be going up when the rich are doing so damn well?

Okay, now you're spewing nothing more than conspiracies.

 

[Mustang]

For instance, this paragraph from the July essay:

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent -- Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft "nationalization."​

So who does Obama and his rhetorical army work to get the people to envy or resent?

The wealthy
The business owners
The evangelical Christians
The Tea Party
Fox News
Rush Limbaugh et al
Any media that is doing its job

And we have seen as documented in the "Phony Scandals?" thread, in some way or another, Obama or his spokespeople have targeted all these groups at one time or another. By marginalizing, discrediting, or in the case of some using the government to silence dissenting voices. But too few seem sufficiently outraged so these incidents are usually just a ripple in the news cycle and are quickly buried and forgotten under more current news. And I believe that too is by intentional design. That phenomenon did not occur much during the Bush administration--anything that could be criticized or scandalized stayed on the front pages for weeks and months and was continued into this administration.

This is dangerous folks. And is almost assured that those freedoms and liberties will continue to erode, chip by chip, almost unnoticable day by day. Sort of like watching weeds grow or snow melt. You can't really see it happen but sooner or later you look out and the weeds have taken over or the snow that was there is gone.

Q. Wanna know what REALLY takes away your freedom?

A. Keepin' you poor!

In the last couple of decades, as jobs have been outsourced, wages have dropped, and it's harder to make a living wage in America. And with the price of higher education going up (Up 500% since 1985), it's harder for parents and their kids to afford an education which allows them to move up economically.

All of this pushes down wages, even as the cost of living is going up. So, what's your choice? It's to take what you're offered even as the income gap in America is widening.

The poor have less freedom and fewer choices than anyone else, and they pay more for what they manage to get. They pay higher interest rates. They pay higher prices for grocery bills if they can't drive to other stores. They pay exorbitant rates for rent, and the poverty rate is going up. Now, why would the poverty rate be going up when the rich are doing so damn well?

Okay, now you're just full of it. You're spewing nothing more than conspiracies.

Exactly what conspiracy do you think I'm advancing?

 

[Foxfyre]

For instance, this paragraph from the July essay:

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent -- Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft "nationalization."​

So who does Obama and his rhetorical army work to get the people to envy or resent?

The wealthy
The business owners
The evangelical Christians
The Tea Party
Fox News
Rush Limbaugh et al
Any media that is doing its job

And we have seen as documented in the "Phony Scandals?" thread, in some way or another, Obama or his spokespeople have targeted all these groups at one time or another. By marginalizing, discrediting, or in the case of some using the government to silence dissenting voices. But too few seem sufficiently outraged so these incidents are usually just a ripple in the news cycle and are quickly buried and forgotten under more current news. And I believe that too is by intentional design. That phenomenon did not occur much during the Bush administration--anything that could be criticized or scandalized stayed on the front pages for weeks and months and was continued into this administration.

This is dangerous folks. And is almost assured that those freedoms and liberties will continue to erode, chip by chip, almost unnoticable day by day. Sort of like watching weeds grow or snow melt. You can't really see it happen but sooner or later you look out and the weeds have taken over or the snow that was there is gone.

Q. Wanna know what REALLY takes away your freedom?

A. Keepin' you poor!

In the last couple of decades, as jobs have been outsourced, wages have dropped, and it's harder to make a living wage in America. And with the price of higher education going up (Up 500% since 1985), it's harder for parents and their kids to afford an education which allows them to move up economically.

All of this pushes down wages, even as the cost of living is going up. So, what's your choice? It's to take what you're offered even as the income gap in America is widening.

The poor have less freedom and fewer choices than anyone else, and they pay more for what they manage to get. They pay higher interest rates. They pay higher prices for grocery bills if they can't drive to other stores. They pay exorbitant rates for rent, and the poverty rate is going up. Now, why would the poverty rate be going up when the rich are doing so damn well?

I don't argue that engineered poverty is a freedom robbing mechanism used by many would-be dictators or other totalitarian governments. And those who presume that government is the proper vehicle to eradicate poverty may or may not have noble motives. But as Thomas Sowell pointed out in those essays in the OP, and in his book The Vision of the Anointed, the lefitsts/statists/progressives/political class are unable to see the consequences of the government salvation they promote. The vision of an ideal, for instance, somebody like a Barack Obama is unable to relate to the reality. And for no group has the reality been more devastating than it has been to the poor.

Why is the poverty rate going up when the rich are doing well? As Sowell points out again and again, the government has engineered that very scenario by presuming that it can order our society better than the private sector can or will.

Excerpted from an essay Sowell wrote in 2004:

August 20th marks the 40th anniversary of one of the major turning points in American social history. That was the date on which President Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating his “War on Poverty” program in 1964.

Never had there been such a comprehensive program to tackle poverty at its roots, to offer more opportunities to those starting out in life, to rehabilitate those who had fallen by the wayside, and to make dependent people self-supporting. Its intentions were the best. But we know what road is paved with good intentions.

The War on Poverty represented the crowning triumph of the liberal vision of society — and of government programs as the solution to social problems. The disastrous consequences that followed have made the word “liberal” so much of a political liability that today even candidates with long left-wing track records have evaded or denied that designation.

In the liberal vision, slums bred crime. But brand-new government housing projects almost immediately became new centers of crime and quickly degenerated into new slums. Many of these projects later had to be demolished. Unfortunately, the assumptions behind those projects were not demolished, but live on in other disastrous programs, such as Section 8 housing.

Rates of teenage pregnancy and venereal disease had been going down for years before the new 1960s attitudes toward sex spread rapidly through the schools, helped by War on Poverty money. These downward trends suddenly reversed and skyrocketed.

The murder rate had also been going down, for decades, and in 1960 was just under half of what it had been in 1934. Then the new 1960s policies toward curing the “root causes” of crime and creating new “rights” for criminals began. Rates of violent crime, including murder, skyrocketed.

The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.

Government social programs such as the War on Poverty were considered a way to reduce urban riots. Such programs increased sharply during the 1960s. So did urban riots. Later, during the Reagan administration, which was denounced for not promoting social programs, there were far fewer urban riots.
War on Poverty Revisited | Capitalism MagazineCapitalism Magazine

What do these groups all have in common?
The wealthy
The business owners
The evangelical Christians
The Tea Party
Fox News
Rush Limbaugh et al
Any media that is doing its job

They have in common that they look to the private sector, to individual initiative and ability, to liberty and unfettered genius and not to government to accomplish things. And they resent a government that is less than efficient and/or effective in accomplishing much of anything while it throws up more and more roadblocks to prevent the private sector from accomplishing anything. That makes those groups unacceptable in a Barack Obama vision.

I earlier challenged you to choose any point from any of those essays in the OP and show how Sowell was incorrect or wrong. You blew me off as has every other leftist/progressive/statist/political class who has posted in this thread. The leftist etc. vision of an ideal is not to challenged under the cold, hard light of reality--there must be no critical examination of the actual results/effect/consequences of what is intended to achieve that ideal. And most leftists etc. simply cannot or will not participate in such an examination.

The challenge remains nevertheless.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Q. Wanna know what REALLY takes away your freedom?

A. Keepin' you poor!

In the last couple of decades, as jobs have been outsourced, wages have dropped, and it's harder to make a living wage in America. And with the price of higher education going up (Up 500% since 1985), it's harder for parents and their kids to afford an education which allows them to move up economically.

All of this pushes down wages, even as the cost of living is going up. So, what's your choice? It's to take what you're offered even as the income gap in America is widening.

The poor have less freedom and fewer choices than anyone else, and they pay more for what they manage to get. They pay higher interest rates. They pay higher prices for grocery bills if they can't drive to other stores. They pay exorbitant rates for rent, and the poverty rate is going up. Now, why would the poverty rate be going up when the rich are doing so damn well?

Okay, now you're just full of it. You're spewing nothing more than conspiracies.

Exactly what conspiracy do you think I'm advancing?

That somehow Republicans favor the rich over the poor, that somehow corporations are out to deprive the poor... I could go on, but those are two main examples there. Did my dismantling of your argument last night not prove that your argument is built on conspiracy?

 

[Sunshine]

For instance, this paragraph from the July essay:

The whole point of the collectivist mindset is to concentrate power in the hands of the collectivists -- which is to say, to take away our freedom. They do this in stages, starting with some group that others envy or resent -- Jews in Nazi Germany, capitalists in the Soviet Union, foreign investors in Third World countries that confiscate their investments and call this theft "nationalization."​

So who does Obama and his rhetorical army work to get the people to envy or resent?

The wealthy
The business owners
The evangelical Christians
The Tea Party
Fox News
Rush Limbaugh et al
Any media that is doing its job

And we have seen as documented in the "Phony Scandals?" thread, in some way or another, Obama or his spokespeople have targeted all these groups at one time or another. By marginalizing, discrediting, or in the case of some using the government to silence dissenting voices. But too few seem sufficiently outraged so these incidents are usually just a ripple in the news cycle and are quickly buried and forgotten under more current news. And I believe that too is by intentional design. That phenomenon did not occur much during the Bush administration--anything that could be criticized or scandalized stayed on the front pages for weeks and months and was continued into this administration.

This is dangerous folks. And is almost assured that those freedoms and liberties will continue to erode, chip by chip, almost unnoticable day by day. Sort of like watching weeds grow or snow melt. You can't really see it happen but sooner or later you look out and the weeds have taken over or the snow that was there is gone.

Q. Wanna know what REALLY takes away your freedom?

A. Keepin' you poor!'

In the last couple of decades, as jobs have been outsourced, wages have dropped, and it's harder to make a living wage in America. And with the price of higher education going up (Up 500% since 1985), it's harder for parents and their kids to afford an education which allows them to move up economically.

All of this pushes down wages, even as the cost of living is going up. So, what's your choice? It's to take what you're offered even as the income gap in America is widening.

The poor have less freedom and fewer choices than anyone else, and they pay more for what they manage to get. They pay higher interest rates. They pay higher prices for grocery bills if they can't drive to other stores. They pay exorbitant rates for rent, and the poverty rate is going up. Now, why would the poverty rate be going up when the rich are doing so damn well?

That is exactly right. The poor are not free. People on government benefits have sold their freedom for the government money they get. You can raise it, you can raise minimum wage. But people who live on welfare and people who work for minimum wage will never be rich unless they make some changes in their lives. And there is plenty of government educational benefits out there for them to do so if they choose.

You tell me, why would the poverty rate be going up if government handouts have increased exponentially since Obama took office?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So... how are we keeping people poor exactly?

Why is it that many of those who are in poverty or whatnot haven't gotten a job or looked for one? Oh that's right, the incentive to remain unemployed and thus poor lies with entitlements, which are pushed by none other than the Democrats, you.

Should you care about the poor, you would encourage them to get a job, provide for themselves, and sever their dependency on the government. They are being kept poor by their dependence on government, not by the Republicans. Pure and simple, Mustang.