« Liberals go soft on Sykes's Limbaugh "jokes" | Main | Heritage's comparative effectiveness dystopia »

May 11, 2009


I agree that Limbaugh's allusion to reparations was wrong and unfair. However, judging a politician's beliefs from his campaign statements is risky. E.g., Brendan's cite includes this quote from Obama: "I have said in the past _ and I'll repeat again _ that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed."

Despite those words, Obama (and the Democratic Congress) killed a voucher program that was working well in Washington D.C. He didn't even allow those students already in the program and doing well in their private schools to remain. So much for his commitment to good education for minorities.

And, he (along with the Dem Congress) adopted an economic program that was not well designed to end the recession. They used the bad economy as an excuse to pass laws favorable to interest groups that supported Democrats, rather than pass legislation specifically designed to improve the economy. That's why GNP and jobs are well below projections. So much for Obama's commitment to jobs.

incidentally, this link:

shows that actual unemployment is as bad as Obama's economists had predicted without the Recovery Plan. So the evidence so far shows that Obama's Recovery Plan isn't helping.

So "David" finds a way of criticizing the President instead of genuinely addressing right winger Limbaugh's coded racist attack or Republican Sessions absurd, obscene attack on the President with his false assertion that the President is trying to “diminish employment and diminish stock prices”.

"David" then goes on to cite an extreme right wing blogger nobody has heard of to assert fictional right wing economic theories that no serious economist believes.

The fact is that the current Republican Great Recession would be a Second Republican Great Depression if it weren't for massive government support.

Many of the "economic program[s]" were begun under Republican President Bush.

But what Republican President Bush's "economic program[s]" were attempting to repair was the massive failure of unregulated, predatory capitalism to 'self-regulate'.

Right winger's predatory and fictional economic theories have done more to "inflict damage and hardship on the free enterprise system" than anything in almost 80 years.

But than "David's" 'source' for economic theories doesn't believe in observable global climate change either, so it's clear that "David" and reality aren't on the same page.

David, vouchers are bad public policy and they are a ruse designed by interests that want to cut funding for public schools and increase funding for private schools (often religious schools). Our public school system needs real solutions, which does not include budget cuts. Obama is right to oppose them.

Eskimohorn, my basic disagreement with you is this: You're concerned with what's best for our public school system. I'm concerned with what's best for our students.

You may be right that vouchers are bad policy, but that's not why the D.C. program was killed. It was killed at the behest of the teachers' unions who were afraid that students in the voucher program would do better. That result would put public school teachers in a bad light. In other words, D.C. vouchers were killed out of concern that they might be good policy.

BTW it's noteworthy that Obama had not a single word of empathy or sympathy for the poor black students he yanked out of private schools and forced back into the failing schools they had escaped from. Obviously he wouldn't put his own children in these public schools.

News Reference, I'm not sure what your global warming comment meant. Global temperatures have been generally rising for over 100 years. There is debate regarding the causes of the temperature change and the amount of change in the future, but the global temperature itself is objectively measurable.

David, after initially proposing that the DC school voucher program be ended completely, President Obama reacted to criticism by proposing a compromise. Students currently receiving vouchers will continue to receive them through their high school graduation, but no new students will be admitted to the program.

"I'm concerned with what's best for our students." David. you may be concerned with what's best for our students, but the architects of the school voucher system are not. They are interested in undermining the public school system by using misleading accountability standards to justify decreases in funding for public schools. There's also support from parochial schools to pump public money into religious organizations.

Ultimately, all school vouchers do is rob Peter to pay Paul.

Eskimohorn, my wife and I are big supporters of public schools. However, one of our children was in a situation that wasn't working for her, and we switched her to a private school for 2 years. The switch was enormously important. Poor paarents should have the same options for their kids.

"Poor paarents should have the same options for their kids."

Parents already have that option. It is not illegal for parents to send their children to private school. If poor parents couldn't afford to pay for food for their children anymore because the government cut off their welfare payments, using your voucher-related "logic", that would mean that these parents "don't have the option to pay for food for their kids."

The comments to this entry are closed.