How Obama Is Robbing The Suburbs To Pay For The Cities

#1
myrobbins7

myrobbins7

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
23,047
Likes
279
#1
President Obama’s plans for a second-term include an initiative to systematically redistribute the wealth of America’s suburbs to the cities. It’s a transformative idea, and deserves to be fully aired before the election. But like a lot of his major progressive policy innovations, Obama has advanced this one stealthily–mostly through rule-making, appointment, and vague directives. Obama has worked on this project in collaboration with Mike Kruglik, one of his original community organizing mentors. Kruglik’s new group, Building One America, advocates “regional tax-base sharing,” a practice by which suburban tax money is directly redistributed to nearby cities and less-well-off “inner-ring” suburbs. Kruglik’s group also favors a raft of policies designed to coerce people out of their cars and force suburbanites (with their tax money) back into densely packed cities.


How Obama Is Robbing The Suburbs To Pay For The Cities - Forbes

Yes We Can!!!
 
#4
#4
I don't necessarily dispute some of the claims made in this article, and Forbes is a fairly legitimate source; however, in light of this, one has to wonder about the differences between public schools in predominantly suburban communities as opposed to those in predominantly urban settings. Does anyone deny that, generally speaking, the suburban schools are much higher quality? Perhaps we can justify this fact by pointing to the higher amount of income, property, etc. taxes (not necessarily in terms of percentages but in terms of dollars) that suburbanites must pay, but then again, perhaps we also need our relatively cheap laborers and our college kids/leaders as well. Whether it's technically right or wrong, as long as this distinction in public schools exists, we will only continue to see more problems with our welfare/entitlement system that so many seem to rue on here. I don't claim that my statements above explain the whole problem, but I think it's something worth taking into account considering the article posted by the OP.

Also, while the article makes legitimate claims, I think it's bogus to claim that voting Obama is not in the interests of suburbanites simply on the basis of "redistribution." So issues like gay marriage, life-planning (abortion, etc.), affordable medications, women's rights, etc. are not necessarily in the interests of many suburbanites? I know the wallet and the purse tend to rule all, but not all the time for everyone.
 
#5
#5
Currently expecting about 10-20 posts calling me out on my claims in my previous post.
 
#7
#7
volprof said:
Also, while the article makes legitimate claims, I think it's bogus to claim that voting Obama is not in the interests of suburbanites simply on the basis of "redistribution." So issues like gay marriage, life-planning (abortion, etc.), affordable medications, women's rights, etc. are not necessarily in the interests of many suburbanites?
Click to expand...

in a free country we probably shouldn't be voting along those lines. I also have a hard time taking a voter seriously if social issues are their primary motivation
 
#8
#8
utvolpj said:
in a free country we probably shouldn't be voting along those lines. I also have a hard time taking a voter seriously if social issues are their primary motivation
Click to expand...

There are many people that do vote based on social issues.
 
#9
#9
utvolpj said:
in a free country we probably shouldn't be voting along those lines. I also have a hard time taking a voter seriously if social issues are their primary motivation
Click to expand...

I'm not gay, nor am I an unmarried, pregnant 18 or 19 year old woman. I'm not a woman period, who still routinely makes less money for the same jobs that men do. I can't speak for those people.
 
#11
#11
volprof said:
I don't necessarily dispute some of the claims made in this article, and Forbes is a fairly legitimate source; however, in light of this, one has to wonder about the differences between public schools in predominantly suburban communities as opposed to those in predominantly urban settings. Does anyone deny that, generally speaking, the suburban schools are much higher quality? Perhaps we can justify this fact by pointing to the higher amount of income, property, etc. taxes (not necessarily in terms of percentages but in terms of dollars) that suburbanites must pay, but then again, perhaps we also need our relatively cheap laborers and our college kids/leaders as well. Whether it's technically right or wrong, as long as this distinction in public schools exists, we will only continue to see more problems with our welfare/entitlement system that so many seem to rue on here. I don't claim that my statements above explain the whole problem, but I think it's something worth taking into account considering the article posted by the OP.

Also, while the article makes legitimate claims, I think it's bogus to claim that voting Obama is not in the interests of suburbanites simply on the basis of "redistribution." So issues like gay marriage, life-planning (abortion, etc.), affordable medications, women's rights, etc. are not necessarily in the interests of many suburbanites? I know the wallet and the purse tend to rule all, but not all the time for everyone.
Click to expand...

One of the Friedmans tackled this question (can't remember if it was Milton or David).

Basically he says that government is horrible at distributing equitably. He argues that the free market brings much more equity to minorities than government programs do. He said if you are an inner city minority, when you vote with your ballot, your ballot does not equal the ballot of a rich white person. You do not receive the same police protection they do. You do not receive the same education they do. Etc.

When that same inner city minority votes with his dollar, he gets a much more equitable result. If you prioritize your car expenditure, clothing, evening entertainment, or whatever it may be, you can buy what wealthy white people buy (to some degree).

Good food for thought whenever people start arguing for the government provision of goods and services.
 
#12
#12
The article is under the Forbes banner, but it was written by Stanley Kurtz, a conservative commentator who writes for such magazines as National Review and The Weekly Standard, among other publications. It should be noted that Kurtz has a book coming out that is of the same name as the article, and that this article is likely to act as a promotional piece for the book

After reading the article, I see that it makes a lot of assumptions about the organization known as Building One America, specifically that Obama and the White House and coordinating with the founder of the organization. Most of the points in the article just seem like assumptions and there seems to be nothing of any substance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
KingNick865 said:
The article is under the Forbes banner, but it was written by Stanley Kurtz, a conservative commentator who writes for such magazines as National Review and The Weekly Standard, among other publications. It should be noted that Kurtz has a book coming out that is of the same name as the article, and that this article is likely to act as a promotional piece for the book

After reading the article, I see that it makes a lot of assumptions about the organization known as Building One America, specifically that Obama and the White House and coordinating with the founder of the organization. Most of the points in the article just seem like assumptions and there seems to be nothing of any substance.
Click to expand...

How are those assumptions?
 
#14
#14
BigPapaVol said:
How are those assumptions?
Click to expand...

Because they aren't based on anything substantive.

Yes, Kruglik did meet with Obama in July of 2012, presumably to discuss his organization's policy and mission. However, this does not mean that the two are coordinating with each other.

The two do have some history, but this does not mean that the two are tied hand and foot to each other.
 
#15
#15
KingNick865 said:
Because they aren't based on anything substantive.

Yes, Kruglik did meet with Obama in July of 2012, presumably to discuss his organization's policy and mission. However, this does not mean that the two are coordinating with each other.

The two do have some history, but this does not mean that the two are tied hand and foot to each other.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean they're not coordinating.

You have no idea what's substantive. What we do know is policy and history. Those don't support your conclusions.
 
#16
#16
it's amazing how all these people Obama has associated himself with for years have so little effect on his decisions
 
#18
#18
volprof said:
I don't necessarily dispute some of the claims made in this article, and Forbes is a fairly legitimate source; however, in light of this, one has to wonder about the differences between public schools in predominantly suburban communities as opposed to those in predominantly urban settings. Does anyone deny that, generally speaking, the suburban schools are much higher quality? Perhaps we can justify this fact by pointing to the higher amount of income, property, etc. taxes (not necessarily in terms of percentages but in terms of dollars) that suburbanites must pay, but then again, perhaps we also need our relatively cheap laborers and our college kids/leaders as well. Whether it's technically right or wrong, as long as this distinction in public schools exists, we will only continue to see more problems with our welfare/entitlement system that so many seem to rue on here. I don't claim that my statements above explain the whole problem, but I think it's something worth taking into account considering the article posted by the OP.

Also, while the article makes legitimate claims, I think it's bogus to claim that voting Obama is not in the interests of suburbanites simply on the basis of "redistribution." So issues like gay marriage, life-planning (abortion, etc.), affordable medications, women's rights, etc. are not necessarily in the interests of many suburbanites? I know the wallet and the purse tend to rule all, but not all the time for everyone.
Click to expand...

At one time, the inner cities were thriving places. Hence, the reason they became big cities. Then famously the white flight happened.

Fast forward to nowadays. What is the main difference between the inner cities and the suburbs? One could site wealth as you did in your post. Although technically true, I posit that the real difference is fundamentally culture based. Throwing money at the public school problem, or the inner city problem, will not solve the problem. We have been throwing mind-numbing amounts of money at these issues for years and they have only gotten worse.
 
#19
#19
PKT_VOL said:
At one time, the inner cities were thriving places. Hence, the reason they became big cities. Then famously the white flight happened.

Fast forward to nowadays. What is the main difference between the inner cities and the suburbs? One could site wealth as you did in your post. Although technically true, I posit that the real difference is fundamentally culture based. Throwing money at the public school problem, or the inner city problem, will not solve the problem. We have been throwing mind-numbing amounts of money at these issues for years and they have only gotten worse.
Click to expand...

Serious question - what's the answer then?

EDIT: And I'm not sure there is a great one.
 
#20
#20
TruthIsOutThere said:
Serious question - what's the answer then?

EDIT: And I'm not sure there is a great one.
Click to expand...

Charter schools are one answer I've heard thrown around, although there's still some debate about how effective they actually are.

I'm not sure what the answer would be. The only thing I could figure is find some way to get city kids in private institutions where graduation rates are higher and more people get accepted to college.
 
#23
#23
BigPapaVol said:
Then why so matter of fact?
Click to expand...

Because the simplest answer is often the one that is mostly correct.

Look, I can't sit here and tell you that with 100% certainty that Obama and Kruglik have not been coordinating with each other for years. It's just that the odds don't favor it.
 
#24
#24
Can we please stop talking pretend words and say what the article really has as it's message? I.e. Obama is systematically redistributing wealth from white middle and upper class folks in the suburbs to his true constituents, black Muslim crack head welfare moms living in the slums.

Carry on.
 
#25
#25
TruthIsOutThere said:
Serious question - what's the answer then?

EDIT: And I'm not sure there is a great one.
Click to expand...

There isn't one. How do you change culture?

The only really successful programs are ones in which those inner city kids are sent to either boarding schools or extended hour charter schools. By extended hours, I mean they go to school real early and stay pretty late (if they are allowed to go home during school days) or they have to stay at school during weekdays but stay at home on week nights. Those programs have been wildly successful.

The problem with this is that the government is essentially raising these kids via their teachers. The really pathetic thing is that they are actually doing a phenomenal job with respect to how they would be raised otherwise.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top