₦airaland Forum

@pres-elect,

no need to debate you on policy. But as for history, read my post again, I said Texas BELONGED to Mexico. You even highlighted it. I didn't say it belongs, but BELONGED. And your analogy is faulty bc while Alaska was negotiated( and perhaps paid for) with the Russians, Texas was taken by force. Arizona was paid for, but many parts of the south west USA was acquired by intimidation.

My bad.  You actually used the word in a past tense. 

And yes, I strongly believe there is something evil about the republicans. In the first debate the loudest applause came when execution of over 200 people in Texas was mentioned.

What is there not to applaud knowing that 200 sadistic killers have received their just rewards? Even the Bible teaches the principle of "an eye for an eye", meaning the punishment for a crime must not be unusual and cruel and must measure up to the crime.  The people who are executed are those who have deprived others of their lives too and I won't let anybody make me feel bad that they have been killed and are still being lined up to face the consequences of their actions.

And yesterday they get excited when a question is asked about a man dying. What kind of people are these?

What got them applauding was when Paul was asked if this people should be left to reap the fruits of their actions.  Mind you, the question was framed to reflect the hypothetical person's deliberate decision to weigh the consequences of his actions, and yet go through with it.  Are we trying to build a society were no one should be responsible for their actions?

I understand when people are mean, the bible said the hearts of man was perpetually evil, but what gets me crazy is when these evil people claim God. And when people like Ron Paul and Eric Cantor feel that those affected by the hurricane should be on their own without FEMA assistance.

Why do you chose to ignore what these folks are saying for sensational interpretations to cast them in a bad light?  Ron Paul's reference to FEMA is that the government's continued bankrolling of FEMA is what has led to the irresponsible behavior by home owners and developers.  Private insurance companies wisely shy away from offering insurance to people who ignore the geographical reality of where they choose to build their homes.  The govt on the other hand, through FEMA writes such insurance to people thereby encouraging reckless risk to lives and properties.  This is what Ron Paul is about.  He does not begrudge you if you choose to build your house on an active volcano, however, do not expect me to risk my life and my treasure to come and save you and your family when the volcano erupts.  This is freedom, undermined by actions and consequences.

This same principle is reflected in the housing meltdown. Private mortgage companies would otherwise not make loans to a lot of people whom they consider at risk. Enter the govt again to tell them certain percentages of their loans have to be made out to these individuals even though it does not make any financial sense. All these were done in the name of compassion and social justice. What did we get in return? The housing bubble, unprecedented foreclosures and the near collapse of the economy because of this stupidity cloaked in humanitarianism.

And as for being awake, well, I'm in Ohio now. Came to visit my Dad with whom I've been enstranged for about 2yrs now when I rejected a proud silly Virginia girl he badly wanted me to marry. By this time next week I'm in Owerri. Go get me some ugba and okporoko. God save me from evil

Hope you had a great family reunion.  When will your travels take you to Darfur sef?

@Pres-elect,

What time is it in Darfur that you stayed up to watch the "evil" Republicans display that awesome evilness on T.V.?  Your insatiable crush on these bunch of evil doers makes you a big suspect o.

I always enjoy listening to Ron Paul. Even though his domestic policy is a disaster of monumental proportions unfit for an animal farm( great foreign policy though) I must confess that I see his speaking from his heart. And he's consistent.

How come you do not like his domestic policy even though you agree with the foreign one?  Think about it, is there an inconsistent application of basic principles he espoused in his foreign policy when compared to the domestic one?  One of you must have disconnected from the principle that bound you together in terms of the foreign policy.  I dare say you are the one that must have compromised that principle as it applies to domestic issues.

However, permit me to recongnize another person I noticed. Rick Perry. He stood by his apparently benign policy towards the Latinos. I wouldn't expect that from a tea partier.

Is that statement in bold meant to be a joke?  Don't tell me you have grown to believe the mass misinformation that the left-wing media have been propagating all along.  Latinos, Blacks, White or Yellow, a conservative does not distinguish between people.  All must be treated equally and left to themselves to determine their outcomes.

And of course he was hammered for it. Lol. But he maintained his Latino policy( I hear Texas is full of Latinos, and that it actually belonged to Mexico).

Go get your history books.  Texas no more belongs to Mexico as Alaska to Russia.

He also tried to vaccinate young girls against HPV. Great idea. Only in America will such a noble policy be criticized. And he apologized for doing the right thing. Am I missing something?

Yeah.  There is a right way to go about an issue and a wrong way.  Perry was man enough to admit with the benefit of hindsight that he shouldn't have used an executive order to circumvent what should have been a legislative action.  As some pointed out, he should have given parents an alternative to "opt-in" instead of "opting-out".

I did enjoy the debate tonight though.  I think all the candidates did very well.  Irrespective of who is eventually selected from that field, my vote will not be going to Obama.

@David,

It's obvious your idol worship of Obama will not make you see reason. I have devoted too much time to you today than you deserve. I have more important things to do than continue to waste my time with a belligerent ignoramus. Goodnight!

What you posted where "facts" from heritage stripped of their context to arrive at a misleading conclusion. Its the typical republican game.
You all tell us about how Reagan lowered taxes and revenues went up . . . but refuse to mention he raised taxes over 10 times.

Olodo.  What was the effective tax rate when he came into and left office?  Also, what was the unemployment rate when he came into and left office?  Finally, what was the govt receipt when he came into and left office?

you talk to us about JFK advocating lower taxes . . . but forgot to mention marginal tax rates were 91% and JFK wanted to peg it at 65% . . . would you advocate we go back to 65% rather than the measly 35% we have now?

Why the continual change in goal post.  You said every increase in taxes also increase govt revenue. Kennedy, Reagan and Bush proved otherwise.  These again are facts which are antithetical to your nature.

Obama made a promise (non-binding) when he wasnt in office yet and had no idea how bad the economy really was. I think this idiotic talking point has been over-used. What next? He uses the teleprompter too often?

You agreed that the statement is true and you are saying again it is a talking point.  Are you such a dunce?  It appears you've been deployed with the talking point to make "talking point" charges at others.

i saw the idiocy that you passed as a response. Yes the motion was defeated by one senate vote under the Clinton presidency. But Boehner, McConnell and others had the congress under Bush for 5 yrs . . . where was the BBA? they forgot? they were too busy at war? Debt was zero then?

Go back and read what I said again.  I will not indulge you with the half-truths you perpetually rely on in this discussion.

At 91%, most of the rich were simply running away from the country so they could keep more of their money. Tax rates are 35% today . . . and you're still borrowing the JFK argument? typical republicans . . . ignorant noise makers.

I see.  So the US has now built fences around its borders to keep the rich in so they do not relocate in response to unwarranted tax increases?  So they can no longer take their money and businesses to other business friendly nations if the climate at home is no longer favorable?  Are you for real?

@David,

why did this same republicans fail to pass the BBA when they had the white house and congress for 5 yrs under Bush? where were you? You all remembered the debt was important only when the "amateur" came into office?

Are you on drugs? Didn't you read my response to that earlier?

you're just an ignorant empty-head.

This describes you so aptly. Again, you are regurgitating someones assessment of you here.

Tax rates under JFK was 91%, he wanted to reduce the rates to 65%.

So? He called for tax cuts which led to a higher government receipt and not the other way round as you have consistently claimed. This again is a fact and not a personal opinion.

David,

Dishonest nonsense. I provided clear facts to buttress my points. posting republican talking points from heritage is laughably ridiculous.
Would it be ok if i provided facts from MSNBC too? you might as well post Hannity's manifesto here.

To think you are a product of the American education system.  Opinions are different from statements of fact.  I never posted an opinion here from Heritage.  What I posted were historical facts and figures that can be verified.  I don't mind reading from MSNBC as long as I can separate the reporting of facts from personal opinion.  

Let me share one more fact with you and not an opinion.  At the time the first stimulus was being debated and passed, the US unemployment rate was a little over 7%.  Obama promised unemployment will never go above 8% if the stimulus was passed.  Now, after a full implementation of the stimulus, unemployment is at over 9% and rising.  Not only did Obama stimulated the deficit, he did the same with unemployment!!!!!

@David,

It's obvious you cannot provide facts to buttress your position, nor can you substantiate your claims with facts.

Heritage provided facts and figures.  Is any of them wrong?  If so please prove otherwise.

I provided you with irrefutable facts about the waste in the stimulus spending.  You dismissed that even though you cannot point to any job that was created by the stimulus spending.  I can't continue to waste my time with someone who cannot provide proof nor articulate his position with facts. You seem to enjoy the propaganda you are being fed by Chris Matthews and co.  Please continue in such delusion. Thank God (by that I don't mean Obama), the false savior (Obama) will not see more than one term at the WH.

And since you hate Reagan so much, what about what John F. Kennedy said? Here it is again in case you missed it:

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now." John Kennedy.

@David,

Let's lay out some historical facts here:

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The Reagan tax cuts
President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:
Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

@David,

There is also a reason we have the entire report available to download for free. I noticed how you decide to avoid it since it doesnt regurgitate repub talking points.

Why are you so intent on showing how much you do not know? Have you ever worked in a corporation and told to write a report? Do you know what an Executive Summary is at all? Any point not addressed in the Executive Summary is either unimportant, or just a contributing factor to the real issue mentioned in the Executive Summary.

I noticed you also ignored the lecture I gave you about the summary. For your own good, please learn from it so you can use it in your professional pursuit. I will not start going through the entire document with you where you have greater latitude to use any phrase, word or statement out of context for your predetermined end. The salient points are well articulated in the summary and I'm not surprised that they undermine your ignorant position.

you are lying and you know it. With your repubs signing no raise taxes pledges with the likes of Grover Norquist . . . sure. The only reason we are here is because of republican intransigence to letting Bush tax cuts expire on schedule . . . maybe you should ask them to raise revenue no?

I see you've been conditioned to believe that the only way to raise revenue is to increase taxes. Please use your common sense for once and deliver yourself from the left-wing propaganda machine. There's a lot of evidence in history to prove otherwise. I just told you the case of NY.

The Bush tax cuts cost about $800bn over 10 yrs

Stop this rubbish that is being spouted by Obama and his robots. Tax cuts do not cost the govt anything. Such statements are made only by those who think all means of production, the products and profits belong to the govt in the first place. So tell me, how much is the cost to govt with the payroll tax cuts that Obama is calling for? While you are answering that question, please ask yourself, what is the cost of the trillion dollar deficit spending of Obama to not only the private sector, but to you and you children?

. . . stop telling me tax increases do not equate to higher revenue . . . we know these tax cuts have led to DECREASED revenue. Maybe you should be directing that nonsense that tax increases dont equate to increased revenue to S&P, i would trust their own economists before i would take your own republican propaganda.

What do you know? How can you be so misinformed? Here is a link on the historical lessons of tax cuts for you to read and hopefully deliver yourself from the grip of a self-inflicted ignorance - http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

It wasnt me who talked of the Bush tax cuts . . . S&P did, stop reading executive summaries when the whole report is available for download. perhaps you would be better informed.

There was an increase in revenue after the Bush tax cuts. What the heck is your point? Tax cuts enhances production and tax hikes does the opposite. If tax hike is the answer, why not tax everybody? Why the selective taxing of a few for political gain?

Let me ask again for the 3rd time (since you weasel keep ignoring it) - where were you all and your balanced budget ammendment when you held power under bush for 5 yrs? did the debt not exist then?

Are you so dumb? Republicans have been pushing for a balanced budget amendment even before Bush became President. The measure was defeated by just one vote in the Senate dealing a momentum set back to the measure. A good economy (yes, even during Bush's presidency) also put it on the back burner. No one really gave the measure any thought with unemployment at around 4% during Bush's presidency. With real unemployment numbers at almost 17% now with increasing govt spending, yes people have started to reason like they should have over the years.

@Davidylan,

If you have an interest in debating Hannity or any other American you have been trained to hate, please call their shows and discuss with them. I don't listen to Hannity, nor do I watch O'Reilly as you continue to hammer as you do other ignorant stuffs. Please address my points and stop all the childish rantings that portray you as an ignorant, self-important Leftist.

There is a reason why we have an Executive Summary. It highlights salient points that the entire document addresses. Additionally, it cuts through the clutter so that people like you who read documents based on your idealogical disposition, will have little room to wiggle and read your meaning into the entire document as you are trying to do here.

The problem is an unsustainable financial burden. A Balanced Budget Amendment will address this problem. A balanced budget entails both cuts and raising revenue. Until the amendment is passed, talking about cuts and raising revenue is mute. And by the way, there are a thousand and more ways to raise revenue other than tax increases. New York City raised taxes on its highest income earners two years ago, and they have ended up with less revenue. So please stop this nonsense that tax increases equate to higher revenue, it does not. What ensures higher revenue for the govt is a vibrant private sector. Tax increases is nothing but an higher cost of doing business to the private sector. How does that help both the govt and businesses? And can you explain how additional spending binge by Obama addresses this deficit spending that is the problem?

As for people buying more govt bonds, the reason is very clear. It is the same reason investors were buying toxic assets with underlying adjustable mortgage loans - they trust the govt will print money to meet the obligations. Also, the US is bound to pay those it owes ahead of meeting any domestic obligations. Did you ever remember Obama or Geitner saying they will not pay investors if the debt ceiling was not raised? Obama on the other hand said he could not guarantee meeting the needs of domestic social programs. Go figure,

@Davidylan,

Below is the Executive Summary of the report:

- We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term rating.
- We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from CreditWatch negative.
- The downgrade reflects our opinion that t[b]he fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our     view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.[/b]
- More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when[b] we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.[/b]
- Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into[b] a broader fiscal consolidation plan[/b] that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any time soon.
- The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case. http://www.standardandpoors.com/ratings/articles/en/us/?assetID=1245316529563

Every reason given above is based on fiscal responsibility and policy.  The key policy decision that warranted all this is mentioned in the last point - government debt trajectory.  How does further stimulus spending help this debt trajectory?

Please stop this partisan strong-headedness and address the issue as it requires.  If Obama signs on to a Balanced Budget Amendment which failed by just one vote in the Senate (after passing the Gingrich republican controlled House) during Clinton's era, then we wouldn't be facing this problem.  The Balanced Budget Amendment has been on the table for a long time and not recently as you have suggested.

Both the RNC and the DNC are the problem, which explains why the Tea Party is not liked by both Party establishment because they are holding their feet to the fire on this most important issue of our time.

@David,

you voted for mccain.

This is how you jump to conclusions without facts. I never voted for McCain.

Had he ever made a payroll in his life? When did that become a criteria to run for president? When a black man showed up?

It becomes an issue when someone claims he can create millions of jobs when he as no proof of even creating one. If McCain claims he can create jobs, then I will have to ask him to show me how many he has ever created in his life. While someone like Romney will be credible in making such a claim because of his record, even he is not so arrogant to claim that he can use the office of the presidency to create millions of jobs. The private sector is the key here, not the government.

I dont think you know what you're talking about besides regurgitating distorted republican talking points.

That you regurgitate left-wing points does not mean others do likewise. Everything I mentioned is rooted in common sense, and you obviously have no answer for them.

@David,

As usual, blame Pelosi. Obama is responsible for a crisis he inherited? how absurd.

I am getting increasingly convinced that you have no ability to reason things out nor are able to be consistent in your ability to apply principles.  You claim it is absurd that I could lay the blame at the feet of a new congress and yet your previous post was a direct accusation that congress was responsible for the downturn of the economy.  You have no ability to reason beyond your prejudice do you?

The stimulus was a "drag on the economy"? Interesting considering under the stimulus, the economy went from shedding 600,000 jobs a month to actually adding close to 150,000 jobs per month and economic growth actually went positive.

What jobs did the stimulus create for goodness sake?  Please I will like you to point a number of them out if you can.  Pulling numbers out of thing air to validate a wrong position does not make it the truth.  The economy created lots of job before there was ever anything called stimulus.  It is only natural that in an event to correct the economic mess, it will reach a bottom and find its way back up.  I have given you an example where the stimulus wasted half a billion dollars and I can give you much more examples.  Please validate your position with examples we can research as truth.

Take your head out of mcconnell's butt for a minute dude.

You must think being caustic and abrasive makes you look smart.  I'm sorry to disappoint you that it is the opposite.

Sorry the stimulus was not what led to the derating of the US credit rating, go read S&P's report, it laid the blame squarely at the feet of republican intransigence and political wrangling. Hard to take you seriously when you make such nonsensical errors.

You are unable to do some critical thinking do you? Every system of democracy is underlined by debates and political wrangling.  You do not have such in a Dictatorship.  If dissent is all that causes a hit in a country's credit rating, then Cuba and Venezuela should have AAA ratings for lack of a strong opposition, but they don't.

A simple attempt to engage one's cognitive process will entail asking what the wrangling was about.  It's a fact that S&P reported that the downgrade would not have happened if the US had addressed its structural debt problem.  The Republicans called for a balanced budget amendment that would have been adequate to deal with this issue but was rebuffed by the amateur in the WH.

And for your information, S&P had put the US on a credit watch since July intimating Bond Firms that the US needs to cut its debt by $ 4 trillion to maintain its AAA ratings.  Needless to say, neither Obama nor Reid put a plan on the table to address this structural issue, hence the downgrade.  And for your information, even the new rating is saddled with a "negative watch" label, no thanks to the spender-in-chief at the WH.

@David,

It actually did if you would pull your head out of the sand for 2 mins. The economy started tanking after Dec last year when repubs took control of the house. Check your facts . . . even Rick Perry needed stimulus dollars to balance his budget.

Not true.  The problem with the economy dates back to when Pelosi and co took over the House, and Bush embarked on a bipartisan spending spree.  Everything came to a head just before Obama took office and he inherited a problem that he was also responsible for.

The $1 trillion did not only NOT create jobs, but was part of the drag on the economy that has led to the derating of the US credit rating.  Now let's go to the actual record of the stimulus.  Obama, in his supreme job-creating wisdom gave $535 million to a green company called Solyndra. As at last month, this same Solyndra has laid off thousands of workers and have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Guess who is stuck with the bills?  Examples abound of cases like this show-casing the economic wisdom, or lack of it of your Messiah.

@David,

Here you go again David. I will say exactly the same thing about McCain if he was President and claims that he can create jobs. The question is why look up to a man who has never made a single payroll to start creating thousands of jobs for the unemployed? That is just stupid. All he can do is ensure that he doesn't get in the way of job creators and that is not the case at this point. Every dime that the govt spends is taken from the productive private sector or borrowed. Either way, it is nothing but a burden on those who are really productive. And with confidence this low, every action by a govt seen as anti-capitaist in its general outlook becomes another drag on the economy.

@topic,

How can you count on someone to create millions of jobs when he has never created one nor made a payroll ever in his life?

@armyofone,

Why would half a trillion dollars in stimulus turn the economy around when 1 trillion dollars did not do such?

@nolongTing,

I agree with you all people need to be given the opportunity to achieve their aspirations.  Section 8? that must be unique to the U.S system and I would not quote Billy if I were you, I think its best to save that for the comedy section.  But when it comes to opportunities do you think that everyone gets a fair crack of the whip?

Not at all. This is not an ideal world and we cannot expect everything to be ideal. Even in Nigeria, your chances of being treated fairly is as remote as it is over here. Your tribe, tongue and religion could affect your chances. I know that from experience.  This is why I like Capitalism.  It is the lowest common denominator for every man, whereas you are valued not based on your skin color, but on what you have to contribute to the society. By and large, those who are able to contribute the most get rewarded the most. 
When I came to the US, all the report I got was how they discriminate and how I will not be able to practice my vocation because I was African and I didn't get an education here.  That proved not to be the case.  I demonstrated to my first employer what I bring to the table and they offered me the job.  I got my first job the same week I received my work permit.  I worked there for just 6 weeks after which I moved on to bigger and better things.  Even now, I get calls from all over the country and sometimes the UK to consider various offers.  Even if these folks are racists, they cannot ignore what I can do for them, and I know what my worth is when it comes to negotiations.  We do not live in a fairy tale world, but we live in a materialistic one where value is placed on what you can do.

You are pretty emotional for a guy with no compassion lol! As far as I know Lady Liberty was a gift of friendship from the French to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of Americas independence from the English. Not sure what this has to do with poor, deprived people. Lol!

It's the symbolism.  Justice should be administered without regard to your station in life. Whether you are poor, rich, white or black should not have bearing on how justice is served.  That is how the government is meant to operate in my opinion.

I think any logical thinking person would be able to see that MLKs dream was impossible, one would have to be colour BLIND not to see another human beings skin colour.  Vision shapes our mind, so keep dreaming.

This same argument applies to tribalism.  I pride myself in the fact that racism or tribalism does not affect my judgement of people.  I am Yoruba and I had a Yoruba driver back when I was working in Naija. I vividly remember his conversation with me one time regarding how I equally employ both Hausas and Igbos without caring for their tribe.  He said people from others tribes will not reciprocate such gesture. Of course I disagree with him, but this just shows how prejudice works in every nation on earth.  MLK's dream is about prejudice.  It may be impossible to attain, but it is the ideal we should strive for.

They must but they will not – what incentives are their for them yto do so? Being fair to ethnic minorities and other under-priviledged groups is a vote loser.

This is exactly why I said the govt should not be involved with social engineering in form of welfare.  It is all about the votes.  What incentives do the Democrats have to do the right thing when they know that the more people they keep on welfare, the better chances they have at the polls?  They have institutionalized poverty because it gives them political advantage.  The purpose of welfare to them is not to get you independent, but to make you dependent on them.  This is morally wrong even though you think it is compassion (that word again, ).

I think that you are allergic to the word compassion, but yopur heroes Obama, Clinton, Bush and Regan used it

Compassion, compassion,  compassion,   compassion,   compassion,   compassion,   compassion.  See, I said the word several times.  I can't be allergic to it now.

Yes the exploitative, ruthless ways of U.S.A incorporated are obvious, my point was put in a cynical manner to point out that they claim its for compassionate reasons but its not. Well, if so, why do you choose to believe they have a fair system? Why not explain the invisiblity of AAs in corporate America? Why not explain the absence of leadership in the AA community? Why choose to dream about the impossible?

Perhaps the problem with the AA community is that they have been made to believe for so long that their salvation lies in the federal government. Remember when Obama was newly elected as President, and various AAs basically expect him to build them houses, kitchens, bathrooms and literally pay them just for being AAs.  Years of psychological abuse has made them to turn their eyes of deliverance away from themselves and towards the government.  The leadership that is needed is in the home.  Unfortunately, we live in a system where the over bearing government has put itself forward as an alternative to a father in the home.  The motto has become: "Is there anything missing in your life? Don't worry, there is a government program for that." Government programs have taken the place of fathers, leaders, providers, mentors etc.

What is your proposed solution in a nutshell?

In a nutshell, reduce the size and influence of the government on our lives.  The more the government grows and is strengthened, the weaker other institutions that should undergird the society become.

yes I know every single individual in my house lol!

Thank God for you. You are the kind of leaders we need today.

Like I said earlier you are very emotional

Actually I am. God, family and nation inspire deep sentiments in me.

May GOD bless you and your family.

Amen! And may He bless you and yours too!

@olawalebab,

The quality of Nigerian graduate and their foreign counterpart, In a thread i open recently, the thread was about to be derail by the "error correcting posters". Let's discuss, does one studying abroad make you better than those that study in Nigeria.

Going by the construct of your statement, I take it that you are a product of the Nigerian school system. What more do we need to discuss? Enough said already!!!!!!

^^^^^

"Huh?" is indeed the appropriate response to redsun's last two posts.

@Davidylan,

I hope you will jettison this vacillations between childishness and maturity that has become the hallmark of your online conversations. I must however applaud the humbleness of your heart and quick retreat from the wrong path. Many can learn from you.

@topic,

After posting my last reply, I came across the following piece by Tyler Perry. It kinda dovetails to what we are talking about.  Anyway, I don't care if it does or not, the piece blessed my heart so much and I'm off to discuss it with my two little boys.  Who knows, one day, they may be required to deliver not only their parents, but the society as a whole.  We need deliverers.


A few days ago, I was in the car on my way to set when we stopped at a red light. I looked up from my script and saw a father walking across the street holding his son’s hand. The child couldn’t have been more then 2 or 3years old, this kid was giddy with joy. I watched this man and his son go into the park and start running and playing. The light changed and as we drove away, I turned around in the back seat to watch them until they were out of sight. My eyes filled with water, I thought to myself, this is really a strange reaction. I was thinking, why did I have such a strong emotional reaction to this father and son? It didn’t take long for me to realize that it was because I never had those kind of experiences, never knew that kind of unconditional joy, never knew what it felt like to be wanted and adored as a child.

Which made me think of this question. I wonder if the man I called 'Daddy' as a child, knew then what he knows now, would he have treated me any differently? If he had known, the little boy that depended on him for food and shelter would grow up to be a man that he would have to depend on for food and shelter, would he have made different choices? I realized that my emotion to that moment was about this man loving his child in the purest sense. No matter what the future holds for that little boy, he will always have that moment with his daddy loving him, for him.

There is an old song written by the Gaither’s called, MARY, DID YOU KNOW? It’s a beautiful song asking Mary, the mother of Jesus, the question, “Did you know that her baby boy would come to save the world?” The lyrics go on to ask, “Mary did you know that when you kissed the little baby, you kissed the face of God?” My favorite lyric is this one, “Mary, did you know that the child that you delivered will soon deliver you?” That last line makes me think of my own mother. Before she died she often said to me that she had no idea that her little baby boy would be able to take care of her the way I did. I get so much joy knowing that I could and I did. That lets me sleep at night. Mom, I thank you! You helped me be able to do that. God bless you!

I want to leave you with these questions. It’s for every parent, the good and the bad. DO YOU KNOW who is in your house? DO YOU KNOW whom you're raising, and will the child that you delivered, have to deliver you in your old age? Think about it, and know that when you kiss that innocent face of your child, you kiss the face of God.

God Bless, talk soon.

http://mobile.tylerperry.com/messages/2011-08-15.php

@nolongTing,

Every action has a reaction, if you do not give the under-class the opportunity to become upwardly mobile – society will pay the price.

The key word here is "opportunity", not hand outs. History, both in the UK and the US suggests the hand-outs have become the problem. Like Bill Cosby commented about Section 8, it was designed for you to move in, move up and move out. Experience however shows that people have moved in to stay for the rest of their lives. I used to own properties that I rented out here in the US. I had a number of section 8 tenants that were able bodied. In most cases, you will find the tenant, her mother and even her daughter all on Section 8. It has become a generational curse even though it was designed to be a blessing.

I always like to say that the road to every destructive government program is paved with good intentions.

You are either naïve or being cynical if you think ones social standing and ethnicity has no bearing on the outcome of justice. You are living in a country which judges everybody by the melanin in their skin and then their wallet, did you not know that?

Call me a dreamer. A fellow dreamer called Martin Luther King Jr also dreamt for the day when no one will be judged by skin color or race, but by the content of their character. Seriously, the ideal is for the govt to be color-blind in all facets of its operations. I'm sure you've seen the statue of lady justice. She holds a scale on one hand to judge, a sword to execute justice and is blindfolded to eliminate favoritism based on race, religion or social status.

The government starts to get it wrong when it treats its citizens preferentially based on religion, tribe, race or status. The government must only recognize its citizens as individuals and every action must be taken to ensure that the individual freedom is not impeded.

You seem to be transfixed with the word “compassion”, are you not a christian? Whats wrong with it? Politics is not just a business entity, by compassion I mean that the working class and under class must not be neglected otherwise the cost to society will be greater in the future.

Compassion as used in popular parlance today means the ability of a politician to play "Mr Nice Guy" with other people's money. Compassion in my dictionary, means a voluntary action of an individual or organization to give up its resources to help those less fortunate without seeking anything in return. The government in almost all cases never meets this criteria.

If there is no compassion in government why do the western governments have welfare states? why do the western governments dish out aid every year to the so called Third world? Why are the western governments implementing a so-called no-fly zone over Libya under the cover of “we need to protect the citizens”, maybe we should switch this conversation to digital circuits instead – politics is not logical Tayo.

Those aids are not for naught. They are usually given to promote or protect the giving nation's interest. Why does the US keep doling out money to Isreal and Pakistan every year when there are many more nations that are worse off? The US does it for it's self interest and not out of compassion. What about Libya? You think Obama cares for anybody in Libya? His actions were based on the need to promote himself and project the US as a fore for good in the region. Why didn't he interfere with Syria that has killed far more civilians in a few months than Ghadafi has done in power for decades? You call that compassion?

I never portrayed the problem as simplistic, please point out where I did so. My point is that the situation is complex and whilst a more sustainable social program is being devised the underclass need to be catered for.

I didn't insinuate that you simplified the problem. All I meant to say is that this matter is more complex than can be handled with this back and forth over the www. And by the way, every government intervention over the years has always compounded and not alleviate the problem. It's time to seek a new direction.

@nolongTing,

Are you sure you are Nigerian? lol! whose side are you on?

Thoroughbred through and through.  You can't mistake the accent

I would say we are on the same tangent however you prefer a more hardline approach whilst i think its better to show more compassion.

This so-called compassion is what has brought the society to this point.  The government is not about compassion.  It is an institution with delegated power to force compliance with societal laws.  The govt is meant to ensure there is justice, and remember, justice is blind.  It does not consider people's race, color or background to mete out judgment.  It is folly in my opinion to think the govt should be used as a vehicle to mete out compassion. That is the role of the Red Cross and other organizations.

Why do I think this way? I think its a better approach to keep the boat sailing whilst preparing the society at large for the more streamlined approach you favour.

The truth is that politicians make decisions to favor them in the next election.  Why should we leave people's lives in the hands of those who do not think further than the next election cycle?

The British government need to implement the cuts more slowly - they have been advised to do so but they want to get the country out of the red asap.

Addicts are best helped most times by getting them to go "cold turkey".  While I know the situation is not as simplistic as may have been potrayed by either of us, any attempt to maintain the status quo at this point is only going to lead to anarchy, a la Greece.

@nolongTing,

I think we agree more than we disagree. I will however like to address some of the things you mentioned.

The government scrapped a payment called the ema (educational maintenace allowance) which was a payment for college students. Although education is free for college education to prepare for university or a job; many poor students from poor background relied on this payment. They went on a peaceful demonstration and the government still cancelled it.

I don't know much about the UK system so my response is based partly on what I read here from you. What is the purpose of ema? Someone (not your father or mother) provides you with free college education and you think they have not done enough? Where is the shared responsibility? Where is the family structure to take up the slack?

The government tripled university fees!

This does not make sense. What likely happened is that government removed the subsidies. This translates to an increase in the fees. Hey, even the govt is broke. If many of those broke-asses get off theire lazy bottoms and do some work, the same govt will have enough to attend to other needs. There are more dead weights than people doing the heavy lifting. This is bound to happen.

The government is going to cut benefits to unemployed people.

What have these unemployed provided into the government coffers? You should only reap where you have sowed. Drawing on unemployment when you did not contribute to it is immoral in my opinion. As long as you are not disabled, I see no reason why you can't find a job that will sustain you and keep you from being a social miscreant.

The government reduced the police force.

This must be budget related as well. Did you ever go on riot in your house when your parents cut benefits due to hard times? Many families - hard working families for that matter are cutting back because of the economic climate. To think those who contribute least to make the system work are now working hard to pull it down is preposterous in my opinion.

The point is the government is making so many cuts to public sector this kind of unrest was inevitable. Remember there were riots over the university fees last year. Mainly white middle-class kids vandalised Trafalgar square and attacked the future king of England; was there this much outcry? but when black kids are involved – its a serious problem.

So the govt cuts are not directed primarily at the black or economic low-end communities. This validates my points even more.

There are many other social solutions issues to do with assimilation and culture.

This I agree with. I believe the entire European community is looking at this and wondering it's about time they scrutinize their immigration policy. What's the point of allowing so many people in who are not ready and willing to assimilate? The riots no doubt will fuel anti-immigration sentiments.

@nolongTing,

So what or how do we solve this problem?  Is the solution in riots and hatred for the community that does its best to sustain and give dignified lives to dead weights?  Where are the African leaders in the UK? Who will address this problem tackling it head-on?  The govt can never take the role of the father or mother in the home.  About time we figured that out and face the real problem.

This is one of the main reasons I hate socialism.  It leads to the eventual breaking of homes and family.  It gves the notion that the govt is all in all and the social fabric that hods the family together is broken through its practice.

@nolongTing,

In fact Africans, especially Nigerians have less single mothers than the white population; this goes to prove that the Marriage institution is pertinent to the stable upbringing of a child.

Now that is the conclusion of the whole matter!!!! I will vote for you if you campaign for office with full intention to address this social problem. People blame the White man while ignoring the social factors that add to the whole wahala. A stable home is integral to building a stable society!

@nolongTing,

Na wa for this your name sef.

Calm down Tayo I have an Ivy league education, I was talking about the plight of Black Youngsters in deprived areas of the UK.

What makes them deprived, lack of money, opportunity or the drive to do the hard work to take advantage of the system they live in?

I am most definitely a skilled professional and I do work for myself lol!

I'm happy for you.  So you will tell your fellow Blacks that the way to emancipation is not to riot but to make themselves economically viable.  Capitalism is the only system that places every tribe, race and religion on equal footing.  If as a Black man, you let an entrepreneur know that you will provide him with a ROI of more than double that of your competition, the investor will not care what your race or religion is.  He is after mullah, and does not care who makes it for him.  This is what we need to teach our people, instead of stoking racial sentiments.

So I should be giving you advice.

I'll take your advise like I do every other.  Like fish, I will eat the meat and spit out the bones.

Those engineers should be entrepreneurial and develop their fathers land not come to Europe and America as servants - that is the way to slavery not emancipation.

I worked for about 5 years as an Engineer in Nigeria before moving to the US.  The difference is very clear in terms of experience, exposure and technical education.  I have learnt a lot here than I believe I would have learnt staying in Naija, and Naija will be better for it if I choose to go back and continue my professional pursuit back home.

nolongTing,

Your so called friends were recruited to become slaves and the Black British youngsters live in areas neglected by the British government - why because its expensive to educate them ok. They would rather these young people live in poverty or get an unskilled, job with no future. They are not gutless Nigerian kids they will stand up for their rights

How does one begin to address this stupid mentality that it is okay to drop out from school, smoke pot all day and expect to move ahead in life? You have a wrong attitude to life, my bro. When you are skilled and a professional, you do not work for others, but for yourself. The skills you acquire is what will position you for a great future. You can migrate to do whatever job you want while seeking the highest bidder for your services or starting your own business. That is the way to emancipation and not slavery.

Look at it from the UKs perspective, would you do spend millions on young children from poor areas or employ middle-class, Bottom licking Africans who think the white man is GOD for half the price without paying a penny for their education?

Tell me, who spends more to educate their people, the UK or Nigeria?

@MandigoII,

EVERY MINORITY everywhere is suffering by some form of White supremacy.

So the suffering of the minority groups in Nigeria is also down to White supremacy?  Minorities of Indian descents in America are a small group and yet have taken over the IT industry.  What happened to White Supremacy in that sense?

this is a fact.  the only thing we can do is DESTROY their materialistic structures, and RIOT RIOT RIOT.

How does destroying what others have add to the value of your own life?  What sort of mentality is this?  Do you think you will be better off today if Bill Gates loses his fortune?

@topic,

And yet, a number of imbeciles will take to the streets in blind rage to destroy what others have built because they say they can't find jobs. I know a number of friends and former colleagues who were recruited right from Nigeria to fill vacant posts both in the US and the United Kingdom. It didn't matter that they were Blacks or Albinos. What matters most was their skills which make them relevant to the society they were going. The in-bred mentality in today's youths who feel they are entitled to every good thing of life irrespective of what they bring to the table is further going to lead to a fall in everyone's standard of living. May God help us.

@topic,

OMG!!!! Is pres-elect finally seeing the light?!!!