I am a true believer in the idea that all problems are social in nature and I am always interested in what those who spend time in the trenches have to say. They are usually more empathetic and are closer to the heartbeat of what really is going on and needs to change. So this statement caught my interest:
All of this effort has been aimed to deliver one basic message: The barrier between America's chronically poor and the American dream is the welfare state socialism, which was supposed to be our answer to poverty.Did she just use the term "socialism"? Red flag goes up - warning - warning - warning - conservative parrot - squawk! Obamacare, states rights, unfunded mandates, debt, wealth distribution, death panels....squawk!
C'mon is this the best the tea party types can put out there? Jiminy Cricket you can run rings around almost all her points. So lets start with this:
I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of poor black communities and replacing it with wealth producing American capitalism.By socialism she means welfare - or in broader terms - dependency on government. For the little guy, it really does not matter who the man is - if a corporation runs Amtrak or the government - it DOES NOT MATTER - all that matters is that the service is available and the trains run on time. Nor does it matter who the little guy gets his paycheck from.
Socialism or corporate ownership means nothing to the little guy, it only means something to the guy that wants to compete against it. The socialism argument is a red herring and anyone who employees it as a destination we are heading is woefully ignorant. The argument is - and should be - strictly on the merits of a dependency by the poor on welfare, for which Obama as well as the two Bushes, Regan, Carter, Nixon, Ford, and Clinton had nothing to do with. If you want to blame someone blame Bush II for "totally reversing the direction we started in after we reformed welfare in 1996" (note to all you youngsters and Tea Party folks - Clinton was the President in 1996).
We have had a welfare state for 40 some years. during that same time our standard of living rose as did our GDP, and wealth. Yet we still have the poor - lots of them. Capitalism - if it was indeed the panacea -would have trumped welfare. It did not, because that's not how capitalism works. You don't generate monetary wealth by sharing, that's collectivism. Capitalism will never do anything for the poor other than allow them to benefit from what is leftover. So yes, our standard of living for the poor is way higher here then in some third world country, but in both cases they are still poor relative to their situation.
Capitalism is not the answer nor is Socialism the direction we are heading and its time to throw this broken record away. The poor are poor for a whole host of reasons, including bad government programs, greedy rich folks, uncaring conservatives, and bleeding heart liberals too eager to throw money at the problem. As long as we think the "other sides" ideas are bunk we will never address the real problems head on. Real solutions don't fly under a red or blue banner nor do they associate themselves exclusively with steeped or bottled water.
You have nothing new to say Ms Parker, you are just another Sarah Palin wanna-be who truly believes she got here all by her own pretty little boot straps and gosh darn it all we need is common sense to govern!
I'll take on your USPS = bad - FedX = good discussion later this week