The Black Radio Support For Obama

Obama has said welfare is one of the reasons for the failures of the black family structure. He has also repeatly said government can’t and shouldn’t do everything. I don’t think I’ve ever heard another “liberal” who talked like that (even if he means it or not).

Really now, Fit… that must have been a rare moment for BHO. Because it sure belies his entire domestic policy foundation. He is a firm affirmative action policy guy. And his insistance that the government can supply/create jobs indicates he most certainly *does* believe the government is the end all solution. Uh… words *do* matter. Especially when those words, weighed against his specific proposals, indicate he says anything that makes the crowds swoon and feel “hope”.

From a NYTs article on his Unity 08 speech after his Euro vacation..

Mr. Obama also answered questions about issues of importance to the journalists in attendance, like immigration, affirmative action, reparations and apologies for slavery, and the treatment Native Americans.

“I think that there’s no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country,” Mr. Obama said, “we’ve got some very sad and difficult things to account for.”

If elected president, he said he would encourage a discussion of a whole range of issues concerning the legacy of such things as slavery. He stopped short of saying an Obama administration would offer any formal apologies.

“The most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds,” he said, adding later, “The best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed.”

Mr. Obama told the group he was a strong supporter of affirmative action “when properly structured” to take into account not only race but economic hardship and lack of opportunity.

You can get the speech “free” from Democracy Now, but only after you make a donation…. uh, okay.

By the time he’s done creating all the new government entities he has planned (all of which require civilian employment), funding alternative energies, and making all departments databases transparent by getting the data online (an expensive proposition in itself, and requiring a lot of govt employees to do so), the feds will take over being the largest employer in the US. And that is not a good thing for the nation.

I think Larry Kudlow’s NRO article back in Feb said it best…

Obama unveiled much of his economic strategy in Wisconsin this week: He wants to spend $150 billion on a green-energy plan. He wants to establish an infrastructure investment bank to the tune of $60 billion. He wants to expand health insurance by roughly $65 billion. He wants to “reopen” trade deals, which is another way of saying he wants to raise the barriers to free trade. He intends to regulate the profits for drug companies, health insurers, and energy firms. He wants to establish a mortgage-interest tax credit. He wants to double the number of workers receiving the earned-income tax credit and triple this benefit for minimum-wage workers.

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won’t pay for it. It’s the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth.
The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore has done the math on Obama’s tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6 percent personal income tax, a 52.2 percent combined income and payroll tax, a 28 percent capital-gains tax, a 39.6 percent dividends tax, and a 55 percent estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he’s also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

~~~

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade, and regulation, Obama’s program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years. It would be quite an irony. While newly emerging nations in Eastern Europe and Asia are lowering the tax penalties on capital — and reaping the economic rewards — Obama would raise them. Low-rate flat-tax plans are proliferating around the world. Yet Obama completely ignores this. American competitiveness would suffer enormously under Obama, as would job opportunities, productivity, and real wages.

The man is not only a foreign policy idiot, he’s an economic nightmare.

Agreed that neither candidates are “fiscally responsible”, Fit. However one is most decidedly more fiscally irresponsible. Thus my bet in this dog race is governed by whom I wish to lose.

You need not trust Moore’s math. Just go to BHO’s site, and start adding up his proposals, figure out how much that will raise taxes on both middle and upper class. I’ve heard 60% tax bracket for “the rich” and as high as 45% for the $200k + group.

But there’s no doubt, by the time he raises taxes first by sunsetting the Bush tax cuts, then gives his lower income tax cut (which might end up a break even proposition…), then start adding taxes back on for his energy, education and affirmative action policies, health care…. our tax rates will be astromonical, our fuel and energy prices will remain high because of his stubborn refusal to address oil needs while transitioning to supplemental alternative energies, and his refusal to erect nuke plants.

I repeat, he’s an economic nightmare for capitalism, and a walking icon for Marxism/socialism – the first baby step towards Communism. If he gets in, and does what he promises on the campaign trail, the nation will vehemently resist…. if they can.

INRE your comment:

Taking out race and gender as the sole determining factors in affirmative action is evidence that we have moved forward. As someone who grew up very poor and rather white, I for one embrace this.

Uh oh… so now that affirmative action isn’t solely benefitting *other* minorities or individuals, it gets your stamp of approval? Then you are missing the argument against “preferences” itself. As Ward Connerly says, when people call him the “nation’s most outspoken opponent of race preferences.”, that makes no explanation for *why* he opposes preferences. And I love Ward, BTW…

It is his words here that will best convey my comments to you, Fit:

As a product of the 1960s, I believe devoutly in “civil rights.” By that, I believe that every American has the right to expect to be treated equally in the public domain — voting, education, employment, contracting — when that individual interacts with his or her government. Thus, “civil rights” are not just for black people. They are for every American and are basic rights to be applied by every government agency operating with taxpayer funds.

~~~

There are now those who seem to believe that civil rights are just for black people or other “people of color” or women. Those who harbor this belief are not true civil rights “activists;” they are civil rights frauds.

For me, the Bradley Prize was a critical validation that there is at least one major institution of American life that understands and appreciates my view that the principle of equal treatment under the law is a basic American ideal worth fighting to retain. And, for that, I am profoundly grateful and enormously energized to continue this modern-day civil rights movement.

The validation is not just a personal one, however. It is for, and of, all those who are working tirelessly, in ways big and small, to defeat the mantra of “diversity” and to reinstate the principle of equality as a fundamental “civil right” for all Americans. snip….

Affirmative action is a system of preferences, Fit. It doesn’t matter whether those preferences do or do not include your hypenated American class and/or race. “Diversity”, a word that pretty much makes Connerly’s ears blow steam, is – again in his own words, “the antithesis of a merit-based, colorblind government.