Republicans..The real allies of African Americans

[Dragon]

Who taught you that young black men/women can't become professionals and successful economically?

That isn't what I said. Obviously, some black people are professional and well-to-do. The fact remains that most are not, and will not have the opportunity to be.

Many economic conservatives, I've found, have a hard time understanding that the following two sentences are very different in meaning:

1) Anyone can become financially successful.
2) Everyone can become financially successful.

The reality is that there are only so many "successful" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.

If everyone in our society had a PhD, the only result would be that we would have burger-flippers, janitors, and unemployed people with advanced degrees. Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.

Look at any poor person who is of at least average-range intelligence, and chances are you will find bad decisions or bad habits, as well as bad luck, making him poor. But all that really means is that these things make HIM poor, instead of SOMEONE ELSE poor. They do not create the poverty slot in the first place. The rules of the economic game do that. If we want to reduce poverty, we need to change the rules of the game.

 

[Jroc]

Who taught you that young black men/women can't become professionals and successful economically?

That isn't what I said. Obviously, some black people are professional and well-to-do. The fact remains that most are not, and will not have the opportunity to be.

Many economic conservatives, I've found, have a hard time understanding that the following two sentences are very different in meaning:

1) Anyone can become financially successful.
2) Everyone can become financially successful.

The reality is that there are only so many "successful" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.

If everyone in our society had a PhD, the only result would be that we would have burger-flippers, janitors, and unemployed people with advanced degrees. Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.

Look at any poor person who is of at least average-range intelligence, and chances are you will find bad decisions or bad habits, as well as bad luck, making him poor. But all that really means is that these things make HIM poor, instead of SOMEONE ELSE poor. They do not create the poverty slot in the first place. The rules of the economic game do that. If we want to reduce poverty, we need to change the rules of the game.

And this sums up the liberal attitude. You can't equalize outcomes, and if you think you can you're delusional. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work, your brand of liberal socialism is a sad joke.

 

[flacaltenn]

Who taught you that young black men/women can't become professionals and successful economically?

That isn't what I said. Obviously, some black people are professional and well-to-do. The fact remains that most are not, and will not have the opportunity to be.

Many economic conservatives, I've found, have a hard time understanding that the following two sentences are very different in meaning:

1) Anyone can become financially successful.
2) Everyone can become financially successful.

The reality is that there are only so many "successful" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.

If everyone in our society had a PhD, the only result would be that we would have burger-flippers, janitors, and unemployed people with advanced degrees. Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.

Look at any poor person who is of at least average-range intelligence, and chances are you will find bad decisions or bad habits, as well as bad luck, making him poor. But all that really means is that these things make HIM poor, instead of SOMEONE ELSE poor. They do not create the poverty slot in the first place. The rules of the economic game do that. If we want to reduce poverty, we need to change the rules of the game.

Well I get SOME of that. But you're not quite right about "the current rules".. So in no particular order.

Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.

No sir.. Things like the internet makes EVERYONE more productive AND more competitive. It leveled the playing field between small companies and large companies which could afford their own technical libraries and market research for instance. It allows folks to compete with brick/mortar stores from their home basements in pajamas. TOOLS !! Since man walked upright -- it's been about TOOLS and learning how to use them. Hard to be a mechinist today without knowing how to use computers. Gonna be harder in the future if you can't draw and edit parts from computer models. The bar for learning is going up.

As far as competition goes -- yup -- you're right. It's there. But it DOESN"T really depend on your academic credentials. It depends MORE (once you snag a position) on how committed you are to LEARNING every aspect of the job. That's the problem I have with unions. They have a shitty view of a 21st century job. But that's another story. Looking at my colleagues, there's virtually NO connection between their academic past and their career. So wasting bucks on MIT when Kansas State was virtually free -- aint' really that much of career predictor. ((Yeah Yeah, I know the stats for career salary from MIT -- but they cheated by only accepting the top 0.1%. Kinda like comparing inner city schools to the 'burbs". Means NOTHING in term of potential))

The reality is that there are only so many "successful" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.

If I made the statement that black opportunity was limited because "those who are good at them are in the minority" -- I'd be called a racist. Give me a Jerry Brown style Military Style High School and a paddle and I'd take Oakland kids at random and get 95% of them a good college offer. Maybe if THAT'S what you mean by "changing the rules" -- then I wholeheartedly agree.

Somewhere about 1998, Rev Jackson was preparing one of his famous cash "shakedown tours" in Silicon Valley. I wrote an Op Ed in the San Jose paper suggesting that the Rev bring me 4 busloads of degreed black engineers and scientists. I'd quit my day job and have them ALL placed by the end of the month. My boss didn't like my editorial, but the CEO caught me after a meeting and told me he'd PAY me to do that. I could have retired on the 10% placement fees.

And this folly that "slots are limited" is brought to you by the same folks who look at wealth in society as a pie. That someone has to take and someone has to give. Doesn't work that way.. Our universities, particularly grad schools are STUFFED with "other world" kids. Not American kids. Even in this awful economy -- there are 2 jobs in science/engineering for every new grad applicant. A society that produces more innovators, developers, entrenprenuers will see it's economy EXPAND. A country that produces lawyers, doctors, and other "service" jobs will stagnant. We can't all service each other into prosperity. But we can GROW slots at ALL levels if we put innovators and risk takers on the field. THIS is what Conservatives are badgering you about. It's a CHOICE about how fast we can expand. Not a straightjacket brought to you by the anti-biz, anti-growth, anti-consumer party..

Your CURRENT party sabotages the chances of black youth succeeding by LOWERING the expectations. Maybe that SEEMS accomodating and comforting but it's not a good thing. And maybe when you don't see that same accomodation from Conservatives/Libertarians you see that as hostility. Take my word -- it's not..

I can drive 15 minutes out of Hillbilly Hollywood here in Nashville and see what LOOKS like awful poverty. Literally no diff from 1900 sharecropping cotton on a couple acres with a mule. As long as cotton sells -- I guess that's not a problem for their next generation. But there IS a choice for that next generation. And for the WHOLE country as well.

We've GOT to kick out the folks who think that economic growth is BAD and UNSUSTAINABLE. Where Wall Street and "the rich" are scapegoats for everything wrong with this country. That America should be ashamed of using resources, and creating goods for market. THAT's where the political choice comes in. And unless you WANT to live in a country where all we have is limited pie -- you need to at least listen to folks who talk about economic progress, business, and economic freedom/choices.

I may be sorry for the pep talk cheerleading. But not sorry about being a greedy capitalist optimist..

 

[Jroc]

[

B]Thomas Sowell [/B]


Blacks and Republicans
The GOP needs to make its case to win blacks’ votes.


San Francisco’s irrepressible former mayor, Willie Brown, was walking along one of the city’s streets when he happened to run into another former city official that he knew, James McCray.

McCray’s greeting to him was “You’re ten.”

“What are you talking about?” Brown asked.

McCray replied, “I just walked from Civic Center to Third Street and you’re only the tenth black person I’ve seen.”

That is hardly surprising. The black population of San Francisco is less than half of what it was in 1970, and it fell another 19 percent in the past decade.

A few years ago, I had a similar experience in one of the other communities further down the San Francisco peninsula. As I was bicycling down the street, I saw a black man waiting at a bus stop. As I approached him, he said, “You’re the first black man I have seen around here in months!”

“It will be months before you see another one,” I replied, and we both laughed.

Actually, it was no laughing matter. Blacks are being forced out of San Francisco — and out of other communities on the San Francisco peninsula — by high housing prices.

At one time, housing prices in San Francisco were much like housing prices elsewhere in the country. But the building restrictions — and outright bans — resulting from the political crusades of environmentalist zealots sent housing prices skyrocketing in San Francisco, San Jose, and most of the communities in between. Housing prices in these communities soared to about three times the national average.

The black population in three adjacent counties on the San Francisco peninsula is just under 3 percent of the total population in the 39 communities in those counties.

It so happens that these are counties where voters and the officials they elect are virtually all liberal Democrats. You might be hard pressed to find similarly one-sided conservative Republican communities where blacks are such small percentages of the population.

Certainly that would be hard to find in states with a substantial total population of blacks. In California, a substantial black population has simply been forced by economics to vacate many communities near the coast and move farther inland, where the environmental zealots are not yet as strong politically, and where housing prices are therefore not yet as unaffordable.

With all the Republican politicians’ laments about how overwhelmingly blacks vote for Democrats, I have yet to hear a Republican politician publicly point out the harm to blacks from such Democratic policies as severe housing restrictions, resulting from catering to environmental extremists.

If the Republicans did point out such things as building restrictions that make it hard for most blacks to afford housing, even in places where they once lived, they would have the Democrats at a complete disadvantage.

Blacks and Republicans - Thomas Sowell - National Review Online

 

[flacaltenn]

San Fran peninsula has some of the most segregated distinct "ghettos" left in this entire country.

East Palo Alto for instance is separated from prestigous downtown Palo Alto and Stanford by a 10 lane 101 freeway, multiple fences and a separate police force. Used to be without a commercial building larger than a doughnut shop until Home Depot, IKEA and a few brave hi-tech companies decided to add tax base to the "poor side of town". Yep those fat cat bankers, and speculators decided to risk their lives and money to make a diff..

When my lifelong Calif buds started bragging the "standard of living" on the peninsula, this Southern raised boy would always take that for the veiled racism that it might have been.

 

[Brutus]

Both helped African Americans overcome the troubles they faced as a result of the legacy of slavery and segregation.

how did a near genocide that destroyed the black family, sent the men to jail, and turned the kids into illigitmate, drop out, drug addicts and pushers overcome troubles? Are you nuts or just a liberal?

" We could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism"- Prof. Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family.”

 

[Dragon]

And this sums up the liberal attitude. You can't equalize outcomes, and if you think you can you're delusional. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work, your brand of liberal socialism is a sad joke.

You have absolutely NO IDEA what "my brand of liberal socialism" is. All I've done in the above few posts is to torpedo a common right-wing economic myth: that everyone can be rich, and that how skewed our income distribution is has no impact on how well people who are not rich live.

But although you certainly jumped the gun there (demonstrating that you don't know how to answer what I said), I'll toss you a bone, and describe some of the characteristics of "my brand of liberal socialism" so that the next time you talk about it you won't be speaking in total ignorance.

I believe you're right that we cannot absolutely equalize outcomes. Or at least, I can't think of any way to do that. But this isn't a binary off/on proposition, equal or not equal, it's a more-or-less proposition, and we can be (and have been, and should be) more nearly equal than we are today. When I was a boy, a CEO of a major corporation made no more than 40 or 50 times as much as a typical factory worker. Today, that ratio is getting close to 1000 to 1. 50 to 1 is of course not absolutely equal, but it's a lot closer to it than 1000 to 1.

When I was a boy and the ratio was 50 to 1, a blue-collar worker made a middle-class income, and the middle class was huge and prosperous; in fact, most Americans, or anyway most white American men, were middle class. (I don't want to stray into discussions of racism and sexism here, as those are really separate issues.) My father was a machinist. On a machinist's income, he could own a home, take annual vacations, and send his three children to college. That's without my mother working. Try doing that on a working-class wage today.

Not only is this good for the working class and for people in general, it's good for the economy. At that time, when that paradigm of narrow income gaps prevailed, roughly from 1940 to 1980, the economy grew in per-capita GDP at a rate more than twice as great as it has grown since 1980. Recessions were fewer, shorter, and less severe, and periods of expansion were longer and more robust, less speculative, more arising from the production of real wealth.

The reason for this is because an industrial economy is demand-driven. The more demand there is for the products and services on the market, the more incentive there will be for investment in the production of products and services, and the higher the demand for labor. High wages mean more buying power widely distributed which means more consumer demand.

No, we almost surely can't exactly equalize outcomes. But we can make them a lot closer to equal than they are now, and if we did, our economy would be much healthier, as well as most people living better lives.

 

[Jroc]

And this sums up the liberal attitude. You can't equalize outcomes, and if you think you can you're delusional. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work, your brand of liberal socialism is a sad joke.

You have absolutely NO IDEA what "my brand of liberal socialism" is. All I've done in the above few posts is to torpedo a common right-wing economic myth: that everyone can be rich, and that how skewed our income distribution is has no impact on how well people who are not rich live.

But although you certainly jumped the gun there (demonstrating that you don't know how to answer what I said), I'll toss you a bone, and describe some of the characteristics of "my brand of liberal socialism" so that the next time you talk about it you won't be speaking in total ignorance.

I believe you're right that we cannot absolutely equalize outcomes. Or at least, I can't think of any way to do that. But this isn't a binary off/on proposition, equal or not equal, it's a more-or-less proposition, and we can be (and have been, and should be) more nearly equal than we are today. When I was a boy, a CEO of a major corporation made no more than 40 or 50 times as much as a typical factory worker. Today, that ratio is getting close to 1000 to 1. 50 to 1 is of course not absolutely equal, but it's a lot closer to it than 1000 to 1.

When I was a boy and the ratio was 50 to 1, a blue-collar worker made a middle-class income, and the middle class was huge and prosperous; in fact, most Americans, or anyway most white American men, were middle class. (I don't want to stray into discussions of racism and sexism here, as those are really separate issues.) My father was a machinist. On a machinist's income, he could own a home, take annual vacations, and send his three children to college. That's without my mother working. Try doing that on a working-class wage today.

Not only is this good for the working class and for people in general, it's good for the economy. At that time, when that paradigm of narrow income gaps prevailed, roughly from 1940 to 1980, the economy grew in per-capita GDP at a rate more than twice as great as it has grown since 1980. Recessions were fewer, shorter, and less severe, and periods of expansion were longer and more robust, less speculative, more arising from the production of real wealth.

The reason for this is because an industrial economy is demand-driven. The more demand there is for the products and services on the market, the more incentive there will be for investment in the production of products and services, and the higher the demand for labor. High wages mean more buying power widely distributed which means more consumer demand.

No, we almost surely can't exactly equalize outcomes. But we can make them a lot closer to equal than they are now, and if we did, our economy would be much healthier, as well as most people living better lives.

This is off the topic of this thread maybe you should start a thread on the topic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.

Stop being a fool, daveman. We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.

Did you get a tingle down your leg when Dear Leader was introduced as "His Excellency" at the UN?

Oh, my, daveman, you are silly, aren't you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.

Stop being a fool, daveman. We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.

Whatzamatter Jake --- no Black business people in this country? You're right somewhat. Reaching out works both ways. And if the black voters cared as much about their economic freedoms, it would be a more equal playing field. I get kinda nauseous when a politician panders directly to me. I don't need them eating fried okra and wearing a Tenn Vols Hat to get my interest.

The idea that our social freedoms and "programs" can exist without Capitalism or a vibrant economy are kinda shakey. We need both..

I agree with much you say, but if the GOP cares about the economic freedom of blacks, then we should reach out to where it works. You sound like the guy on the sidewalk shouting, "Go to work." There's far more to that. We have failed as a party, period, but we can change that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who taught you that young black men/women can't become professionals and successful economically?

That isn't what I said. Obviously, some black people are professional and well-to-do. The fact remains that most are not, and will not have the opportunity to be.

Many economic conservatives, I've found, have a hard time understanding that the following two sentences are very different in meaning:

1) Anyone can become financially successful.
2) Everyone can become financially successful.

The reality is that there are only so many "successful" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.

If everyone in our society had a PhD, the only result would be that we would have burger-flippers, janitors, and unemployed people with advanced degrees. Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.

Look at any poor person who is of at least average-range intelligence, and chances are you will find bad decisions or bad habits, as well as bad luck, making him poor. But all that really means is that these things make HIM poor, instead of SOMEONE ELSE poor. They do not create the poverty slot in the first place. The rules of the economic game do that. If we want to reduce poverty, we need to change the rules of the game.

And this sums up the liberal attitude. You can't equalize outcomes, and if you think you can you're delusional. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work, your brand of liberal socialism is a sad joke.

GI Bill? Integrated military? Enforced federal presence of civil rights?

Jroc, it sux to be you, truly does.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jroc has demonstrated the worthlessness of the Hard Right on this OP. Fail.

 

[Jroc]

That isn't what I said. Obviously, some black people are professional and well-to-do. The fact remains that most are not, and will not have the opportunity to be.

Many economic conservatives, I've found, have a hard time understanding that the following two sentences are very different in meaning:

1) Anyone can become financially successful.
2) Everyone can become financially successful.

The reality is that there are only so many "successful" slots in our economy, and getting into them is competitive. Only so many people will succeed. On an aggregate level, it doesn't matter if people stay in school, work hard, practice deferred compensation, and spend money frugally. These things matter on an individual level, but only because those who are good at them are in the minority.

If everyone in our society had a PhD, the only result would be that we would have burger-flippers, janitors, and unemployed people with advanced degrees. Something that makes me, as an individual, more competitive, cannot make everyone more competitive because that's an oxymoron; competitive means not just good but better than my competitors -- which means they have to be worse than me, or my education, ability, drive, and good business habits mean nothing.

Look at any poor person who is of at least average-range intelligence, and chances are you will find bad decisions or bad habits, as well as bad luck, making him poor. But all that really means is that these things make HIM poor, instead of SOMEONE ELSE poor. They do not create the poverty slot in the first place. The rules of the economic game do that. If we want to reduce poverty, we need to change the rules of the game.

And this sums up the liberal attitude. You can't equalize outcomes, and if you think you can you're delusional. It doesn't work, it has never worked, and it never will work, your brand of liberal socialism is a sad joke.

GI Bill? Integrated military? Enforced federal presence of civil rights?

Jroc, it sux to be you, truly does.

umm.. how do those equlize OUTCOME get a clue Jake. Read before you post

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't have a clue, do you? You lost this a long, long time ago. Hard Right revisionism is wrong history, wrong interpretation, and your kind is old, growing fewer in numbers, and will die out quickly. Very soon, no on will remember your type of nonsense.

 

[Jroc]

Don't have a clue, do you? You lost this a long, long time ago. Hard Right revisionism is wrong history, wrong interpretation, and your kind is old, growing fewer in numbers, and will die out quickly. Very soon, no on will remember your type of nonsense.

Dude.. I just called you on your stupid post which made no sense, and you moderates are on the way out. People like you do nothing but hurt the Republicans in the long run we can't tell the differance between you and the libs becouse there isn't much

 

[daveman]

Of course you did.

No. Are you going to answer the question?

Not until you admit you acknowledged that the Dem Party is doing what I said it does.

 

[daveman]

No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.

Stop being a fool, daveman. We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.

Whatzamatter Jake --- no Black business people in this country? You're right somewhat. Reaching out works both ways. And if the black voters cared as much about their economic freedoms, it would be a more equal playing field. I get kinda nauseous when a politician panders directly to me. I don't need them eating fried okra and wearing a Tenn Vols Hat to get my interest.

The idea that our social freedoms and "programs" can exist without Capitalism or a vibrant economy are kinda shakey. We need both..

I worked with a guy at my last base. Retired E-8, now working for a defense contractor. Degree in business management. Conservative. Owned his own business on the side, a restaurant. Gave it up not because it was failing -- it wasn't -- but because he and his wife were working themselves to death.

Oh, and did I mention he's black?

I asked him once why blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. He said, "It's because they don't think for themselves." They vote as they're told to, by their preachers, their family, their community leaders.

Predictably, I will be called a racist for relaying this black man's opinion.

 

[daveman]

No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.

Stop being a fool, daveman. We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.

Did you get a tingle down your leg when Dear Leader was introduced as "His Excellency" at the UN?

Oh, my, daveman, you are silly, aren't you?

No, I am not an Obamabot leftist.

You, however...

 

[flacaltenn]

No one has acknowledged the Dems buy the black vote anymore than GOP buys the business vote.

Stop being a fool, daveman. We need to reach out in the GOP to the blacks, and we have failed since 1980 big time.

Whatzamatter Jake --- no Black business people in this country? You're right somewhat. Reaching out works both ways. And if the black voters cared as much about their economic freedoms, it would be a more equal playing field. I get kinda nauseous when a politician panders directly to me. I don't need them eating fried okra and wearing a Tenn Vols Hat to get my interest.

The idea that our social freedoms and "programs" can exist without Capitalism or a vibrant economy are kinda shakey. We need both..

I agree with much you say, but if the GOP cares about the economic freedom of blacks, then we should reach out to where it works. You sound like the guy on the sidewalk shouting, "Go to work." There's far more to that. We have failed as a party, period, but we can change that.

Wouldn't make much sense to be on the sidewalk shouting "go to work" right now. The economy is shrinking, the pie is getting eaten and the morons in charge have actually gotten their deepest wish.. It's the Progressives and leftists that were lecturing us about only having 5% of the world's population and holding 25% of the wealth. It was the LEFT that was whining about unsustainable rates of growth. Go read what I said about EVERY American having a clear choice of a shrinking pie or an expanding economy and GDP here :

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4172307-post543.html

That should speak to CURRENT folks about the clear economic advantage of NOT scapegoating biz and the rich, when the problem is preparing America for the 21st Century of jobs and world trade. If Obama cared as much about getting inventors, creators, designers, and entreprenuers back on line as he cares about the class war agenda, people and the markets would respond.

What part of THAT choice doesn't "reach out" to the black community?? Can't shout at people now to go to work. We've got to rescue the coming generation of workers and stop abandoning black children in failing public schools that think imposing standards and high expectations is racist. One of the 1st things that the DEMs did when they took control in 2008 was to scale back the DC voucher program.. That was a lifeline for parents who give a crap. And if you look at the leadership of the voucher movement -- your gonna find a boatload of notable blacks. Not that vouchers are the ONLY method. BUt it's the only one available NOW TODAY for black parents trapped in that nightmare.

Lots of reaching out happening on the economic front. And the choices are really clear right now. You might be surprised how fast the Uncle Tom's can multiply...

 

[flacaltenn]

Dragon::

Just a comment on one point..

When I was a boy, a CEO of a major corporation made no more than 40 or 50 times as much as a typical factory worker. Today, that ratio is getting close to 1000 to 1. 50 to 1 is of course not absolutely equal, but it's a lot closer to it than 1000 to 1.

When you were a boy -- I'm guessing that Caterpillar Tractor was a successful mid-size company in Peoria Ill.. TODAY --

Caterpillar products and components are manufactured 110
facilities worldwide. 51 plants are located in the United States
and 59 overseas plants are located in Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Canada, England, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Indonesia,
Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, the
People's Republic of China, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South
Africa and Sweden.

They now employ almost 100,000 people worldwide and manage $70BILL in assets. They make everything from shoes to financial products to the worlds largest construction machines.

That 50 to 1 versus 1000 to 1 "salary problem" you're so worried about? How do you think the Union negotiation would go if the boss was asking you to go from managing 1955 Caterpillar to 2010 Caterpillar worldwide and 20 large sub-businesses? The responsibilities, stresses and employee ratio has changed almost 10 fold. Take that into account when you're bitchin about having to work late.