AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Cyclop, as you seem to be incapable of reading what is written or having any kind of reasonable discussion on the actual topic today, I won't be responding to you on this subject further. At such time as you can make a rational argument and be civil, I will be happy to discuss it with you if you would like that.

That depends on how literally you use the word "destructive". By its very nature, Affirmative Action promotes minority applicants for jobs, admissions to colleges, and so forth. It doesn't, by itself, increase the number of positions available. Therefore, by the laws of arithmetic, AA leads to the rejection of qualified applicants who would otherwise have been accepted. These people are harmed by Affirmative Action.

You can argue that the benefit to the promoted applicants outweighs the harm to the rejected ones. You can argue that the net cost to universities is trumped by benefits elsewhere in society. But if you're saying that AA harms no one, you're way over the top.

Fox, you can't drop every point someone raises and claim that they are incapable of reading what's written. I read every word you wrote. I am attempting to have a reasonable discussion about why you are wrong.

You on the other hand have had no response to what I have wrote whatsoever. You have neither addressed nor challenged any of my points. Linking to the Black Republican website is not the same thing as engaging in conversation.

So please don't pretend that you somehow are taking the high road when you are retreating from the conversation. Show how the Conservatives have not done the things I said and perhaps you will be, yaknow, actually engaging the conversation. Show some evidence that Affirmative Action has been harmful - evidence, not theory - and that would be engaging the conversation. You haven't even attempted to do either.]

Typical and pathetic. You're not really here to discuss anything with any non-conservative, you're here to act like some sort of martyr when people disagree with you.

Cycloptichorn

You misunderstand; the Conservative argument, forwarded by Fox, is that AA harms the groups that it is supposed to help, not harms other qualified applicants for the job in different groups.

I don't think there's much argument that AA isn't helpful to every specific person in question from other groups.

Cycloptichorn

For the record, I did not make the statement Thomas is attributing to me here. Otherwise, we are mostly in agreement though I think 'minority' applicants hired under an affirmative action program can also be harmed. I have worked with and had conversations with people hired under affirmative action who were frustrated that their colleagues would never accept that they got their job on merit instead of through benevolence. Even if hired on merit, they were always suspect that it was something other than qualifications, merit, and ability that earned them their positions. That's just one of many downsides to Affirmative Action these days.

I think we respect and honor people by allowing everybody to be seen that they earned what they get instead of being awarded it by virtue of the color of their skin or by any other criteria.

Thomas- It would appear that Affirmative Action, which has been utilized for nearly 40 years in the USA and, from time to time, been reduced in scope by the US Supreme Court, would, by this time, have produced legions of Black PhD's in Science, Math, and Computer Science. Any review of the race of Phd's in the USA will reveal that blacks, even after 40 years of artificial advancement under Affirmative Action, have not done very well. There are very few black PhD's in science. I would have thought that when blacks received AA help(since, of course, there is no difference between races with regard to basic intelligence) that the numbers of blackPHD's in science would be in the millions. Not so.

In some areas there are fewer than fifty black PHd's. Indeed, the black PHDs are found clustered in such soft subjects as Education and Black Studies.

My daughter, who just recently graduated from law school told me that she and her friends always counted the number of black students in the class since they were likely to be on the bottom half of the curve.

Look up the number of black lawyers in the USA, Thomas. Few are found in the large law firms. East Indians are found in profusion and the same is true for Asians but there are very few blacks.

MANY OF THEM USED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION TO BEACCEPTED AT LAW SCHOOLS WHERE THEY WERE STRUGGLING AND USUALLY ENDED UP AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CLASS.

lAW FIRMS KNOW THIS AND SHY AWAY FROM CHOOSING THEM.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS BEEN A FAILURE FOR BLACKS IN THE USA

Socialist Liberals are racists and bigots. They repeatedly accuse all conservatives of being racists.

Ican't U R nuts.

While continuing to disagree with Genoves on some of the substance of his argument, some of the other downsides to affirmative action is that everybody is rewarded for less achievement/accomplishment than otherwise might be the case.

When you lower the requirements to make good grades for school kids because a group isn't making the grade, everybody is rewarded for substandard performance and the incentive to achieve excellence is reduced. How much better to focus on convincing the sub-performing group that they are as smart and capable as anybody else and provide incentive and tools for them to catch up rather than lowering the standards for everybody? Why isn't that preferable to a decision to accept less well educated kids out of expediency based on the theory that one group needs that kind of help or that is the only way to level the playing field?

When you lower the physical requirements so that women can qualify for certain jobs, you reduce the strength of the organization. Yes some other benefits may materialize, but to assume that the group will be as strong as before is just silly.

When, in the name of Affirmative Action, you lower requirements for people to get into college or qualify for jobs, you hurt everybody. Either the organization itself will suffer from more incompetence and quality or the people are set up for failure because there is no way they will be able to compete with those who prepared themselves to meet the higher standards.

It is time that we stopped looking at the color of people's skin and instead focus on expecting everybody to do what they need to do to achieve the goals they want to achieve. There is nothing that builds self esteem more than knowing that you accomplished something difficult and did it well. We do nobody any favors by taking that away from them.

Like I thought: all theory, no evidence

Cycloptichorn

Your points are well taken, Foxfyre. I am sure that you know that Jews were discriminated against in the early part of this century. There are still Jew Haters around. When Harvard decided that they could no longer be the resting place of the socially elite, they opened up their doors to Jews who had been effectively barred from Harvard and, for that matter, most of the Ivy League.

Jews did not get Affirmative Action priveliges. No sir. They competed academically and later were among the highest scores on the SAT. Harvard had gone from a place for the elite to a school which enshried MERITOCRACY.

Anyone who has studied the history of the Jews in the USA knows that they were discriminated against but, in many cases, came from grinding proverty exacerbated by the depression of the thirties.

Why can't blacks do the same thing? Why do they need special nurturing?
They hav e,according to all reliable psychometricians, basic intellectual ability equal to any other race.

Some say that many African-Americans are crippled by 1. their inability to properly venerate education( see Asians on this score) 2. A reliance on the confort provided by victimhood( I would have made it but they don't like blacks) and 3. a refusal to understand that the person with the highest score should be admitted before those with a lower score. The ghetto boy knows that the highest score in basketball wins.

Are you aware, Foxfyre, that many professors in colleges and universities are chafing under the usually unspoken requirement that they must not fail more than just a few blacks There is a great deal of evidence to show that this has resulted in wholesale grade inflation. The average Harvard student now gets higher grades than the Harvard grads of the eighties. If blacks cannot be failed( we need them for the count) then the others in class-whites, asians, East Indians--must receive higher grades than they normally would have received. Blacks create an artificial floor.

The charges that society has not done enough to provide for early education of blacks is absurd. The worst city system in the USA, measured by achievement, is the DC city system. The children in that system receive the highest level of aid---an astonishing $11,000 per child. There is no city system which is higher.

I've never accused all conservatives racists; those I called or would call racist aren't conservatives but right-wing ... racists.

Besides that: the party leader of the British Socialist Liberal Party, aka Labour Party, got the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the White House's East Room as recently as January 13, 2009.

Harvard was - if I read the sources correctly - a "bastion of a distinctly Protestant elite": Jews and Catholics weren't allowed until thet urn of the twentieth century.

But does Affirmative Action apply to religions as well?

QED: McTag is a slandering bigot.

Left wing socialist liberals are racists because they repeatedly call all right wingers racists.

Affirmative Action is racist.

As I said earlier...not all right wing conservatives are racists. But every racist I have personally known has been a right wing conservative. They often brag about both...brag about being racist and brag about being hard-core right wing conservatives.

As for the more general population...I think considering American history, the American south can be said to have more than its fair share of racists...and among the good ole boys of the American south, right wing American conservatism is King.

And that really says a lot more about right wing conservatism than any questions about whether or not they are all racists.

genoves still can't grasp the history of this country where discrimination ran rampant in the south, and many still treat blacks as less than human. He believes all blacks going to college today should meet his criteria for law school. ROFL

Here is a terrific piece on why the conservative approach to our economic problems is wrong.


ECONOMY
Right-Wing Myths About The Stimulus

Last week, House Democrats released an $825 billion economic recovery package, which consists of $550 billion in government spending and $275 billion in tax cuts. The provisions in the plan were marked up by various congressional committees this week, with the goal of passing a full stimulus package sometime in mid-February. Though they voiced some support when President Obama initially laid out his vision for a stimulus plan, conservatives balked upon seeing the bill that emerged from the House. Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made his opposition known by simply saying "Oh. My. God." Conservatives have coalesced around "alternative" stimulus proposals like one crafted by the Republican Study Committee (RSC). But in their opposition, conservatives have propagated several myths about the stimulus and its potential effect on the economy. Here are the three most prominent conservative stimulus myths, and why they amount to nothing more than hot air.

MYTH 1 -- SPENDING IS NOT STIMULATIVE: In response to the stimulus plan, conservatives on the House Budget Committee released a report stating that the proposal "pours taxpayers' money" into projects, "many of which may be worthy in themselves, but have little to do with 'stimulating' the economy." Harvard professor Robert Barro derided the plan as "voodoo economics," while right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin claimed that it will "at most be useless." However, an analysis by Moody’s Economy.com found that government spending results in more significant "bang for the buck." For every dollar invested in specific types of spending, the boost in real GDP is more than $1.30. The most benefit comes from extending unemployment benefits ($1.64) and increasing food stamps ($1.73), but strong returns result from infrastructure investment ($1.59) and aid to state and local governments ($1.36), as well. Furthermore, Moody's also noted, "A well-timed, targeted, and temporary stimulus could in fact cost the Treasury less in the long run, since a debilitating recession would severely undermine tax revenues and prompt more government spending for longer." Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's and former adviser to Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign, released his analysis of the House plan on Wednesday, and concluded that it would "provide a vital boost to the flagging economy," without which full employment would not return until 2014.

MYTH 2 -- STIMULUS WON'T CREATE JOBS: Last week, Boehner claimed, "When it comes to slow-moving government spending programs, it's clear that it doesn't create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen." Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said that "even if consumption were to bump up, it would not lead businesses to expand and to add jobs." However, as former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich explained, "The stimulus plan will create jobs repairing and upgrading the nation's roads, bridges, ports, levees, water and sewage system, public-transit systems, electricity grid, and schools." It stands to reason that investing in infrastructure is going to lead to job creation, as someone needs to be hired to actually complete the various projects. By investing $100 billion in clean energy infrastructure alone, the Center for American Progress (CAP) has estimated that 2 million jobs can be created in the next two years. Aid to states through bolstering Medicaid also "generates business and gets people into jobs," as a recent report by Families USA showed: "The new dollars pass from one person to another in successive rounds of spending, generating additional business activity, jobs, and wages that would not otherwise be produced." Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Christina Romer and Vice President Biden aide Jared Bernstein, meanwhile -- by using the "1% of GDP equals 1 million jobs rule of thumb" -- estimated that a stimulus plan will create or save three million jobs. According to their calculations, "30% of the jobs created will be in construction and manufacturing," while "the other two significant sectors that are disproportionately represented in job creation are retail trade and leisure and hospitality."

MYTH 3 -- PERMANENT TAX CUTS ARE THE BEST STIMULUS: The only stimulus idea that conservatives are wholeheartedly supporting is permanent tax cuts. At a hearing before the RSC, Romney, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist all claimed that the stimulus should include permanent corporate tax cuts, while Barro claimed that fully "eliminating the federal corporate income tax would be brilliant." But CAP'sWill Straw explained, "The track record for such steps is poor in general, but they are particularly ill-suited for a recessionary period. After all, the reason that businesses and individuals are not investing at the moment has little to do with the taxes they may pay in the future and everything to do with a fear of losing money because there is no demand in the economy." The Heritage Foundation, meanwhile, proposed an "alternative" to the House stimulus: "permanent tax reductions such as the ones Congress passed in 2003." "Tax cuts like those have a proven track record of encouraging economic growth," wrote Heritage. But this is simply the same supply-side approach adopted by the Bush administration, and the evidence that it helps economic growth is "weak at best." An analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund shows that every $10 billion spent on this kind of cut would create or save just 10,000 jobs, "versus nearly 60,000 jobs which could be created or saved by extending unemployment benefits and food stamps or investing directly in energy, transportation and education infrastructure." Furthermore, permanent measures will exacerbate the long-term debt much more than temporary measures will.

-- americanprogressaction.org

It's really funny when the conservatives talks about our economy; they continue their dogma that tax cuts (for the wealthy) creates jobs. Our country has been waiting for job growth since Bush's tax cuts five years ago, and we have instead seen jobs in our country shrink. On job creation, Bush is second to none even to Hoover, the worst president in creating jobs.

So what magic wand does Boener and his criminals propose? More non-bid government contracts to Halliburton?

So, when what solutions did he offer in its place? I'd like to hear what his recommendations are to revive our economic crisis? Saying something is "voodoo economics" doesn't answer the big question; it's only a criticism. We are in a crisis; the good professor does understand that, doesn't he?

BTW, affirmative action doesn't just give preference to minorities, it also gives it to women.

I don't know whether this is still the case, but the State Department gave preference to women in hiring. Women were passing the difficult entrance test in much smaller numbers, so they were allowed to take a separate test just for women. Then, hiring was done on a equal basis from the two tested groups. This is reverse discrimination.