Self-Help for Cybear

[burbuja2]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Self-Help for Cybear, posted by Cybear on May 26, 2004

You said something half-way intelligent.  That is, can a market based approach remedy what you term "such discrimination"?  You were then correct in asking whether "such discrimination" actually exists. Let me rephrase the question.  Would you have a problem with preferences based upon economic status rather than race.  I think a lot more people wouild find that premise more acceptable than AA which is divisive and not correlated to the status of disadavantaged.

[Cybear]

... in response to Finally!, posted by burbuja2 on May 26, 2004

I believe that in part the complex formula that the U of M utilized did address the questions of economic disparity. Certainly, there are intelligent and talented White students who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds similiar to that of some African American and Hispanic students.

[Heat]

... in response to Re: Finally!, posted by Cybear on May 26, 2004

AA is used by the KKK to further their sick view of the world.  Why not take it away and let our kids live the way
MLK wanted.  On their merits?

Then we have justice for all.

Btw, I'll bet if we meet in person we can find common ground.  If you make it to Cali look me up and I'll buy the first beer.  You are welcome in my home.

[Heat]

... in response to I'll buy the beer, posted by Heat on May 27, 2004

You take that back

That was before I saw you again called me a racist.

That was above the pale.  Just because we disagree does not make me a racist.  What is up with that?

[Cybear]

... in response to Re: I'll buy the beer..IF, posted by Heat on May 27, 2004

I have not called you or anyone on this board a racist. I do no know you personally and to level such an accusation would be short sighted. One gentleman on the board, whether tongue in cheek or seriously (I think the former rather than the latter) declared himself a racist. My point was that white racism and discrimination exist not only in the minds of individuals, but also most importantly in the institutions of this country. Despite resistance, policy makers have found it more effective to confront racism and discrimination on an institutional level (i.e., hiring practices, educational opportunities, open housing, etc.). This contrasts to confronting racism on an individual basis (convincing a White person not to dislike or for that matter not hate someone else because he or she is of a different hue, culture, or speaks a different language). I label racism as prejudice and bigotry when discussing bias emanating from individuals (including Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc.). I view racism as systemic. This form of racism wields the levers of power and its affect is far more reaching. The majority of White people, regardless of their racial attitudes are not in the powerful political and economic positions that determine how and when institutional racism operates.

Several of the writers accused me of having a victimized mentality. I would go so far as to say that similar to Blacks and Hispanics, Whites are also the victims of racism. Not only individually, in terms of being trapped by their prejudices (discussed above), but by their manipulation by others who use race as a divisive tool for economic gain. I am not speaking about a single person reaping the rewards of bigotry, but a system that has historically used race as a way to divert and confuse the larger population in the US. Let me expound on this issue. Several years ago a young Chinese man was beaten to death by a group of White men in a city outside of Detroit, Michigan, The reason the men killed him was because they thought he was Japanese and responsible for their loss of jobs in the US auto industry. At the time, Japanese imports were increasing to the US. In this situation, even if the young man was Japanese, do you think he had anything to do with US autoworkers losing their jobs? The reasons that US auto workers lost their jobs was due to a structural realignment of international markets and manufacturing, as well as deficiencies in the US auto industry. Unfortunately, the killers' analysis only went as far as the young man being Asian and what they was the source of their financial misery.

Today we can see the same twisted logic in the form of some Whites opposing programs created to confront institutionalized racism. Unwittingly, some Whites have bought into the argument that otherwise qualified Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians are taking their jobs and seats in universities. In reality, when one looks at the current situation solely in terms of employment, nothing could be further from the truth. It is widely reported that approximately three million US jobs were lost during the last two and a half years in the US and the number is rising. Many of those jobs (manufacturing and white collar) have gone to China, India, Singapore, and other low wage countries. At the same time, massive tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy, as well as other forms of corporate welfare for trans-national companies has cost the US Treasury and the average tax payer untold billions of dollars.

When you factor in the cost of invading and occupying Iraq ($200 billion with estimates that it could eventually top $600 billion), it is not difficult to understand how the middle class existence that many on this board enjoy and expect is now in jeopardy (cut backs to education, veteran benefits, health care, infra structure,etc.,) We need to stop creating bogeymen -"it is the Blacks, the Mexicans, and the Asians who threaten the American way of life". Instead, we should look deeper, not only into our own souls, but beyond. We need to ask the tough questions as to whether the political and economic direction of the United States is in the best interests of the majority of US citizens (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Arabic) or only enriches the chosen few and the trans-national corporations.

Peace and Justice  
 
Cybear

[Miguel]

... in response to Re: Re: I'll buy the beer..IF, posted by Cybear on May 27, 2004

Singapore a low wage country? That's news to me.  Economic development is finally flowing to India and China.  Per capita income has increased from a few hundred dollars per year to something much higher.  And you want to jerk it all away from them. Your policy (keep the jobs in the U.S.) would condemn hundreds of thousands in third world countries to DEATH.  And not only that, would hurt the U.S. economy.  Ever heard of comparative advantage?   And the massive tax cuts for the wealthy -- that's complete crap.  Right now highest bracket taxpayers in high tax states pay over 50% of their income (including sales and property taxes) to governments. Want to bleed them some more? And where do federal tax dollars go?  Instead of being re-invested to provide jobs efficiently in the private sector, they go to pay subsidies to corporations and wealthy farmers, to pay for military bases that should be closed, to build amusement parks in rural Iowa, and so on.  Keep the dollars out of the hands of the politicians.  What are the economies that have grown fastest and provided highest standard of living?  In Europe, Ireland and Switzerland.  In Asia, Hong Kong and Singapore.  In the western hemisphere, the U.S.  What do these have in common?  Comparatively low taxes.

[Cybear]

... in response to Re: Re: Re: I'll buy the beer..IF, posted by Miguel on May 31, 2004

If you are wealthy and paying 50% or more of your income in taxes you should fire your CPA and tax attorneys because they are not doing a good job. Your assessment is correct as far as not placing more money in the hands of misguided and corrupt politicians. Is the Iraq conflict a good use of billions and billions of our tax dollars? However, I would exercise care in allowing an unregulated business sector to call all the shots. Major corporations, their CEOs, and boards have proven as inept and corrupt (Enron, WorldCom, Halliburton,etc.,) as the worst politicians and bureaucrats in Washington.

Persons that oppose the flight of US jobs overseas do not necessarily oppose open trade but question the proponents of free, but not fair trade. For example, autoworkers in Michigan or Ohio cannot compete with a Chinese autoworker that earns only five to seven dollars per day. Certainly, if Shanghai can produce less expensive automobiles that are comparable in quality to its Detroit counterpart, US consumers will realize a boon. However, what toll will this place on the US economy? Will the demise of local and state economies cost us more in the long term than the lower sticker prices on the automobiles we buy to take us to jobs that no longer exist?

[Cali James]

... in response to Re: Re: I'll buy the beer..IF, posted by Cybear on May 27, 2004

[This message has been edited by Cali James]

"At the same time, massive tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy, as well as other forms of corporate welfare for trans-national companies has cost the US Treasury and the average tax payer untold billions of dollars."

The so called tax cut for the rich, was more or less a 10 percent reduction to ALL brackets above 15%.  At the bottom end, the amount of income to reach the 15% bracket was increased by several thousand dollars and the tax credits for children were more than doubled from $400 to $1000.

When people say the tax cuts were for the wealthiest of the wealthy, they are IMO being intellectually dishonest.  The truth of the matter is that the percentage reduction was more or less uniform for all tax payers regardless of their income.  For instance, if I paid $10,000 before the tax cut, I might expect to pay $9,000 after.  Now if I paid 10 million in Federal taxes, the tax cut was not 1,000 but 10 percent like everyone else or 1 million.  To my mind this only seems fair but to the progressive liberal mind, only increases in taxes are to be given the wealthy.  

For those who believe that the rich don't pay their fair share, the IRS statistics suggest otherwise.   For tax year 2001 (see IRS website for statistics) the top 10% of income earners, paid 65% of all Federal income tax in the United States and the top 1 percent of income earners paid 34 percent.  Furthermore, the bottom 50% of income earners paid less than 4 percent of federal income tax despite the fact that their income represented 14 percent.

[Pete E]

... in response to taxing the wealthy, posted by Cali James on May 28, 2004

James,
Agreed.But even as a republican and a Bush supporter in general I think this is a bad time for a tax cut.
There is a desire to stimulate the economy.I think it pretty much is a cyclical thing and has to work itself out.Partially it is a reflection of things getting very much out of balence.Price to earnings of most stocks is still way out of line with historical figures.
But if we do want to stimulate the economy,things like investment tax credits will work much faster and at alot less cost than general tax cuts,or cuts in tax on dividends.
The worst thing we can do is make any tax cut "permanent",removing it from reconsideration as things change.We are spending way too much money right now to be cutting taxes.I remember when the republican party used to be the party of fiscal responsibility.
Not only is Bush vulnerable on Iraq,but even more so on his fiscal policies.
I supported John McCain.I wish we had him as president.But I will take Bush over goofy Al Gore.
Kerry?Problem is he is a democrat,beholdent to so many special interests,like unions and affirmative action advocates.Whats the biggest obstacle to education reform in this country?Teachers unions.
I like the idea of a flat tax.People making more money will pay more taxes because of it,but not be in a higher tax bracket.A fairly large amount of income would be tax free,so even middle class people would have a big portion of their income tax free.Lowering their effective tax.The problem is any tax reform that shifts any amount of tax burden downward is considered regersive by some.If middle class people will pay more its a tough sell.
I think if you can vote to have the government raise spending you ought to have some responsibility of paying for what you are voting for.OK,maybe a 2 tier tax structure,where even low income people have to pay something,be somewhat responsible for what they advocate.
Earned income tax credit?Isn't that where the government pays you money if you don't make a certain amount?Bad bad idea.
And then if we quit paying farmers to not grow crops to artificially raise the price of products,but I degress,some more.

Pete

[Cali James]

... in response to Re: taxing the wealthy, posted by Pete E on May 28, 2004


The fairest tax is the one that places the burden to pay for the government services on the person(s) who benefit from it.  An example would be the highway system, the family that walks to work and school should not be responsible for paying for roads they never drive on.  The fairest way to pay for roads would be something like the gasoline tax but the tax on gasoline would only be used to pay for roads and not syphoned off to pay for other programs.  There's really two advantages to this, the first is fairness which I've already mentioned, the second is important also and frequently overlooked and that it establishes the true cost.  When resources come from sources unrelated to the use, we loose sight of the true cost to employ the resource.  Take water as example, since water is subsidized by the federal government, the true cost to produce crops is altered visa other choices consumers might make with their dollars.  If farmers had to pay the actual cost to produce a particular crop, we might discover that the food procuced today would be in different varieties and quantities.  How many billions of dollars do we waste by not establishing the most efficient use of our resouces through the system of costing.

So I would employ the use tax wherever I could.  I would fund the other government spending through a VAT.  I would eliminate the income tax forever as it is complicated and inneficient.  A better case can be made for consumption as a fair basis for taxation than income.  Consumption is straight forward, there are no loopholes, it affects everyone the same, people, businesses, corporations etc.  It encourages saving which is vital for capital creation and it help creates a more fair and efficient system for paying for government.

[Heat]

... in response to Re: Re: I'll buy the beer..IF, posted by Cybear on May 27, 2004

I am not speaking about a single person reaping the rewards of bigotry, but a system that has historically used race as a way to divert and confuse the larger population in the US.""

I am taking about you reaping the rewards of a system that pretends to right wrongs by doing someone wrong.

Do you not understand that you got in line in FRONT of someone by using the color of your skin?

Did your Mama teach you that two wrongs do not make a right?

Why do you NEVER answer this question?

What about the poor Asian or white guy that you bumped from the line?

How do two wrongs make a right?

[Cybear]

... in response to Answer the question, posted by Heat on May 27, 2004

Do you know that for many years institutionalized discrimination permitted less qualified Whites access to opportunities while totally denying others with equivalent or greater qualifications because of their race or nationality? Do you recognize that these discriminatory practices continue to exist and only yield because of legislative action and social pressure?

Has every approach to remedy the wrongs of the past succeeded? No. Has every approach been without problems? No. Do those problems justify abandoning the goal of equality and justice for all?  No. Whenever the constitutionality of equal opportunity measures comes in to question by any affected group, I support their right to seek and attain the balance in this nation?s courts.

Peace

[Heat]

... in response to Re: Answer the question, posted by Cybear on May 27, 2004

Do you know that for many years institutionalized discrimination permitted less qualified Whites access to opportunities while totally denying others with equivalent or greater qualifications because of their race or nationality?""

Again please answer the question.

Do you admit that you bumped an innocent person out of line to get into law school?  How is THAT justice for all?

How is THAT person responsible for the past?

[Cybear]

... in response to Still waiting, posted by Heat on May 28, 2004

I am not aware that I "bumped" anyone out of my law school class or MBA program. I was an honor student in high school and graduated cum laude from undergraduate school. Contrary to what you may have been led to believe, law school admissions officers did not select me from a group of fellows standing on a corner drinking wine, and surprisingly not one of my fellow Black and Hispanic students were convicted felons.

In a typical law school class of fifty to sixty students, I would see one, possibly two other Blacks, a couple of Asian students, and possibly one student of Hispanic descent. The rest were White students, (with a lower ratio of White women to White men). Only 10 of the approximately 130 students in my graduating class were Black, with a smaller number of Asian and Hispanic students, the majority being White students.

In the MBA program, there were even fewer Black students. In a number of my classes, I was the only Black student. Sometimes a class of thirty or forty might include two Black students, two or three Asians and a Hispanic student, and again the majority were White students. As you can see by the numbers, "AA" did not open the floodgates and wash White students out of the law and MBA programs that I attended. Furthermore, once we were in the programs, we all had to perform. Blacks, Whites, Asians, and Hispanics had to take the same law school exams and had the same demanding professors scrutinizing our papers. However, let us assume your argument were true that some "unqualified" Blacks (including me) and Hispanic students should not have gained admission to the professional or graduate schools we attended. Do you realize that our stay at those schools would have been a short one? The academic demands, commitment, and the competitiveness required to graduate was intense. The respective administrations of those schools would not hesitate to remove students (Black, White, Hispanic or Asian) who were not equal to the task.

Peace.

     

[Heat]

... in response to Re: Answer the question, posted by Cybear on May 27, 2004

Has every approach to remedy the wrongs of the past succeeded? No. Has every approach been without problems? No. Do those problems justify abandoning the goal of equality and justice for all? No. Whenever the constitutionality of equal opportunity measures comes in to question by any affected group, I support their right to seek and attain the balance in this nation?s courts.""

This is the same crap you have said before.  IOW AA=payback to the innocent for the sins of the past using liberal courts and the point of a gun.

Will you admit that YOU pushed someone out of line to get what you wanted by using the color of your skin.

Do it!  Have the balls to admit it!
Nothing but racism here.  Dress it how you like but you are just as guilty of racism as the people you seek to stop.
Shame on you for not having the balls to admit that you ripped somebody off.

In 50 years people will look back at you and shake their head about black racism.  

You have no core beliefs in justice.  Your a liar.
You want to advance your people at the cost of the innocent.

Admit it!  At least admit your a racist.

Come clean