Featured Dr. Thomas Sowell: Why Obama is 100% Wrong About Baltimore

FDR invented the modern welfare state and he said that welfare is a narcotic.

So you have millions of people deadened by the narcotic of welfare, just as Dr. Sowell says.

Welfare destroys anyone who is on it for generations. FDR said that welfare destroys one's soul.

So much for the notion that welfare is compassion--if it were compassion, it would not be prescribed so freely and over so many decades.

 

The rioting beginning in the 60's was not caused by the Democrats, at least not the ones advocating liberal policies (remember, the Democrats had been the conservatives, opposing progress, and that liberal element of the party beginning to adopt Civil Rights legislation is what then began to lead to the much ignored Southern Strategy, where the parties were switched to the current affiliations).

As this page http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-movement shows, the riots had started because of the rise of Black Nationalism.
All the anger of generations had boiled over, and even though Civil Rights were making great strides at the same time, there was still a lot of opposition (which seemed to pick up steam, then, as the opposition was losing ground and feeling more threatened) and some people then felt the more "peaceful" methods of protesting were not enough, and began erupting more violently.

(This sort of dynamic was happening all across the board, including the rebellion of white teens against the old order of society as well at the same time, and the wars, etc. The things people are blaming "liberals" for were themselves just another part of this, not the cause, as you can ask then, what caused this "liberalism" to arise and take hold at the time it did, in the first place?)

Trying to blame it all on one party's policies at one time sounds a lot like the whole "blacks were happier and better off" under segregation (and the slavery advocates had said the same things a century earlier), "...and they were just ignorantly lured —by the promises of 'free stuff' by these liberals only using them for their own agendas" rhetoric that reduces the entire Civil Rights cause to evil motives on the parts of all but conservatives, who were always totally the good guys.
It's also to continue to blame "welfare" for everything (the poor are getting all the money, not the rich who have bought out the entire political system, and can take the money out of the country, and in many other ways pull strings).

Sorry, but nothing is ever that simple and generalistic (and lopsided in favor of one group of humans), as all have the same sinful tendencies to advance themselves at others' expense.
(Some liberals may have had ulterior motives and there were many blacks who called them out on that, such as Malcolm X and the other revolutionaries, so again, their actions were not caused by the policies of these liberals).

 

I'm responding to this:

He's obviously blaming it all on the “vision” and “policies” of liberalism, which are seen as taking over during the 60s. (Perhaps I shouldn't have used the party name there, but it is part of what's blamed).

 

The only point in this respect is that the 60's has been made the turning point (in these moral and social issues).

 

"I'll have those n*****s voting Democrat for two-hundred years".

Lyndon Johnson


He bought 'em and they're staying bought. That's the real "southern strategy".

Just another form of slavery, this time to the government and democrats.

 

OK, that was one person with bad motives. And that's if he even said it (there seems to be some question on that. Like here http://www.quora.com/Did-LBJ-really...rs-when-passing-the-Great-Society-legislation "the quote is consistent with Johnson's language in that he often used the n-word. However, the quote is not consistent with the sentiments he conveyed in other private conversations. He truly believed in equal rights, he just lived at a time when someone could say the n-word and no one would think anything of it.")

But even to grant that there were at least some Democrats with such motives, it would be only half of the story. "Southern Strategy" was named for the other side (Goldwater/Nixon)'s move to lure over all the "Dixie" Democrat voters, (who were against equality, but would not benefit from blacks voting for Democrats, and didn't see it as "enslaving them another way", but rather felt betrayed by Civil Rights legislation, regardless of whatever motives behind it).

 

We're still paying for Johnson's and the democrat's "southern strategy" that created a permanent poverty class of urban blacks dependent on the government dole.

That permanent poverty class is the root cause of the outlandishly high black crime rates and the violence and rioting taking place around the country today. Supposed police killings of black criminals is just an excuse. The root cause of all of it is the poverty guaranteed for blacks by democrats, forever.

The entire country is still paying the bill, regardles of political affiliation.

Johnson's "War on poverty" has cost over $22 trillion , with no end in sight. Our most expensive "war" in history. A war we have lost , but keep paying for.

 

There's also the "war on Drugs", which is also expensive, and guarantees more people get imprisoned and then face less opportunity when they get out.
It's never as simple as what you're making it.

This is still grounded on the oft spouted notion of this mass of "lazy problem people who only want free stuff" and this other party manipulating them for their own ulterior agenda, and this is the cause of ALL our financial and social problems. It's greatly exaggerating the problem of "black dependency", which for about 40 years or so, has been attempted to be made the main cause of high taxes, and thus, the deficits.
That is what's using someone else's behavior ("black crime", "welfare" etc) as an excuse for a bunch of skewed views. This is just what's called "splitting" and isolating all evil onto two groups. Do you really think that there are no other factors at all in the problem?

The fact that it's not so simple can be shown by asking what you want done about these problems you all keep complaining about? You may say, vote for the right people, but no matter who you vote for, no one is ever happy, and the same problems continue. You've had solid blocks of Republican presidencies, and at one brief period, all three branches of government, yet people here were then saying they were no better then the Democrats. Libertarians like Ron Paul, and even radical paleo-Cons like the Constitution Party came along, and people here were divided on them (realizing they would never win), and they haven't gone anywhere.

That's not the fault of the liberals or the "permanent poverty class". The liberals are their opponents, not their voting base. And it's not "all the votes Democrats have won from these minorities", because they are —minorities, and don't have the numbers to by themselves keep the other parties from winning (unless the races are close, as they have been recently, but you still have to ask why they are so close, and one side so lacks steam, if they are so good for the country, and the other side so bad).

So what do people want then, to solve these problems? People are just pointing fingers, but there has to be a purpose for pointing, and it should eventually lead to a some sort of solution. Otherwise, it just looks like deflection from perhaps some deeper problem.

 

But everybody getting shot, or even harassed, is not always doing a crime/being a criminal. Then, when someone is, it gets lumped into the larger problem (think "the boy that cried wolf"), so it not simply making a victim of criminals.

 

Everyone getting shot or even harassed is not putting police in a situation where this is necessary. Diallo didn't, and neither did the 12 year old playing with a toy gun (and aren't most of you gun advocates who complain about toy guns being criminalized?)
Unless you're referring to that "accept whatever they do to you because you have to pay for the crimes of 'the entire community' until you all clean it up" insinuation I've been seeing.

It's not the kids complaining of being harassed who are trying to nationalize the police. This again, is trying to wholesale discredit the peoples' concerns by linking them to what you fear the big bad liberal government is trying to do to you (like when ML King's movement was called "Communist". Conservatives today claim to like what he stood for, but forget what their predecessors said about him).

It's just amazing that people can so complain of "government" being so corrupt (and "taking away all our freedoms", etc), and doing so much wrong, but when it comes to this one group, now all of a sudden, the authorities are always doing right, and only harming wrongdoers. (Or, I guess it's just the local authorities?)

 

The purpose is to get people to recognize the real problem and address it.

Since the racial apologists on the left won't identify the problem, they will never do so.

Also known as denial. All the statistics are there. They're just being ignored, excused, or spun.

The root problem is a permanent poverty class of urban blacks created by democrats to keep blacks enslaved to their ideology. They don't want it fixed.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo The defense won the case with "if he had only did what the officers said". What was totally ignored was that these were plain clothes officers. After all that, it was actually someone else they were looking for.

When you say this:

that is basically insinuating that either the cops NEVER do anything wrong to the people, or if they do, it's because "the community" overall has "police officers in a situation where this becomes necessary". In other words, I'm sure the NYC mayor has raised his black son to not be out committing crimes and such, but still felt he might be in danger of police reacting to some fear, or perhaps mistaken identity, and readily shooting him. But he was made out to be wrong for this.
And then others say "well, if blacks should just address all their own murders of each other instead". Which is basically saying, they should accept whatever the police do, until they get their act cleaned up, which, again, being an entire national demographic of millions of individuals (not one or a few people), would take time, and many are so angry, they're not going to listen anyway.
So what are the ones not doing wrong supposed to do in the meantime? Just accept being shot? (And this again granting that the cops ever discriminate, which you don't even seem to want to allow the possibility of).

Why? You all are saying the other side "doesn't want to address" problems in their thinking. Why do you seem to think the "truth" is always completely on your side?

There may be SOME instances of people dong wrong, and then suffering the consequences for it. There are also SOME instances of them doing wrong, but the reaction (such as death) is greater than what they were doing called for. And there are some instances of mistakes or discrimination, where the victim wasn't doing anything.
What I keep seeing in discussions like this, is that one side is 100% wrong and deserves everything that happens, and the authorities are always right. UNTIL they do things conservatives don't like, then they become evil dictators, and some out there seem to be preparing their own armed war against them if necessary! (i.e. your concerns about the system are the only ones ever valid).

 

You're just repeating the same thing. WHAT is "addressing" it? Just complaining about it forever and ever? WHAT would be done about it, once addressed?

It again, is just what I've said. You've isolated "the problem" down to two "entities", basically, as the "root problem" (And notice, the "root problem" is the racially defined "class" themselves, and the political party involved is only the [separate] cause of it).
When you isolate the culprit of a crime, then the solution is to catch and punish him. But that's a single individual; now, we're talking about an entire "class". What do you want done?

And again, since this "class" is a "minority", then what really are the Democrats getting out of "keeping them enslaved"? You're not even saying "votes", now; you're saying it's an "ideology". How does a minority by themselves give them all of this power?
Why isn't the unholy alliances of business ever seen as having any part in "the problem" (at leas the financial aspects of it)? Here is what I keep seeing. Rather than BOTH poor underclasses and ineffective liberal programs, AND corruption and cronyism in the levels of power (both govt. and private) having a share in the problems, blame is always shifted in ONE; the same direction only. Then it's demanded to be shouted over and over and drummed into everyone else's head ("addressed") but this looks like it's only shift of focus (i.e. deflection); I'm not seeing any actual solution being given.

There are people on the other side of the political spectrum who benefit from this, who also don't want the problem fixed; they just want to screw over one side, and have them blaming other [unfortunate] people beside them, while they skate off, on everyone's back, unseen and unchallenged. It makes sense what they would "get" out of that!

And I've seen statistics; often the same ones, "spun" both ways. That's the nature of statistics. A whole lot of factors and figures, and fallible humans not only have to put them together, setting the parameters, etc., but also have to interpret them, and tend to focus on what they want to use for their argument. So you can only put but so much stock in them.
The "Democrats" opposing the end of segregation decades ago used statistics. In fact, the very same ones sorts being used today, (such as on "crime"; comparing southern and northern cities; like the whole "{Baltimore/Chicago/Detroit, etc.} is a liberal problem" argument).
(What I'm noticing in that regard, is that the problem "liberal" cities are simply the northern, densely populated ones. That's something that will figure in something like this. The more people there are, the more problems and conflicts there will be).

Also still curious as to why the blacks were so susceptible to this liberal ploy in the first place. You once posed to someone a "choice" between "cultural" and "genetic" issues; (but at one point said it wasn't "cultural"). You also said the answer would be perceived as "racist". That looks like it points to one thing, but to be fair, I then asked you about this in the discussion years ago, and you never answered.
(I guess the answer to that question would point to the answer of what to do about it).

 

And again, since this "class" is a "minority", then what really are the Democrats getting out of "keeping them enslaved"? You're not even saying "votes", now; you're saying it's an "ideology". How does a minority by themselves give them all of this power?

I'm still referencing the votes, because it's called leverage. Despite their being a minority, I think the Blacks often are pandered to by the Dems because historically about 90% of the Black vote goes Democratic. They may only be some 12-13% of the electorate, but a 90-10 split means an automatic margin of more than 10% of the total voting for whichever candidate gets the 90%. The last six presidential elections have seen the popular vote margin be less than 8%, sometimes much less.

Given their long time being opressed, it's probably unfair to criticize Blacks for voting so overwhelmingly one way. However, the policies put in place by that "one way" may not be doing Blacks, or other groups with significant segments stuck in poverty, any favors in the long run. I suspect that's what Mr. Sowell might have been getting at.