Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, as you say they already are. Obama's point was just that we should help each other - include instead of exclude. He didnt say pay MORE taxes.
So he is saying MORE of my 60% is going to the City? How about MY community? How about MY schools?
I will get back to you on your other comments (I have a nice luncheon to go to) but obviously, posters on this forum read and hear what they want to read and hear...
It's the quote you chose and the interpretation, the spin, you gave it in order to make your point. Your spin is to cherrypick a quote and offer it as an example of Obama deliberately race-baiting. But when your quote is seen in context it's clear that he's not race-baiting.
This was important enough to you for you to go to the trouble of making a thread about it. I dont know about you of course and wouldnt want to, but the points we try to make in the threads we create certainly do say something about us.
Well, as you say they already are. Obama's point was just that we should help each other - include instead of exclude. He didnt say pay MORE taxes.
First of all, I am not sure that any politician ever comes right out and tell people they will have to pay MORE taxes, even though he knows they will.
Obama is the one cherrypicking. He is the one who singled out suburban 'white executives' as a group who may not want to pay taxes for inner city schools. Whether you like it or not, he is putting part of the potential blame for the poor performance of inner city schools on a specific racial group- 'white executives'. In my book, that is race baiting.
If the McCain camp had singled out blacks in a similar way, you would be howling with indignation.
That is Obama's voice. He was being interviewed after the release of his book, Dreams from My Father.
In the context of that portion of the interview, Obama is claiming that 'white' suburban executives don't want to pay taxes to inner-city schools. This shows a startling lack of understanding of how school funding works in Illinois.
Illinois public schools are funded mostly by their respective districts' real estate taxes. The rest is funded by state taxpayers on a need-based sliding scale. The result of that is that those 'white' executives fund their own schools at a level of about 95%, and also provide about 30% of the Chicago Public Schools' budget. So, those 'white' suburban executives are paying for their own schools and Chicago's schools.
Furthermore, if Chicago's schools need more funding (they don't - they already spend more than $11,000 per student per year), they should be raising property taxes on Chicago properties; there's a lot of pricey properties in Chicago - for example, Obama's $1.2 million home on which he paid $14,559 in real estate tax in 2006. 5040 S Greenwood Ave, Chicago, IL 60615 | Zillow Real Estate
If anything, it's OBAMA who is unwilling to pay for inner-city schools.
As far as that interview - Obama could have left this as a dispute between city and suburban taxpayers and leave it at that (though as explained above, he still would have been inaccurate in his conclusion), but instead - he deliberately chose to deride 'whites' in what he mistakenly believed was school funding inequity.
Obama's scapegoating 'white' suburban taxpayers in this way, without understanding what's really going on with school funding, shows a decidedly anti-white bias on his part - very much like the anti-white rantings of Rev. Wright and the Black Liberation Theology church Obama belonged to for 20 years, got married in, and where he had his kids baptized.
Obama has mellowed his 'pitch' to be more palatable to the masses during this Presidential election season, but he has a strong decades-long background of antipathy towards 'whites.' In this interview in which he discusses the inner-city school funding issue, Obama is racist and wrong.
In view of the fact that he is in the pocket of the NEA, who IMO bear the brunt of the responsibility for the pathetic state of our school system, how is the One going to go about making changes? How is throwing more of suburban executive's money at inner city schools going to somehow cause the many students and their parents who do not give a damn to suddenly take an interest in education?
Could the folks who know Chicago schools give it a look and see if it makes sense to you? Though it's a summary it's still pretty complicated and I dont know the Chicago school system or its tangled history.
Obama's site's education section appears to have a lot more thought put into it - many more details - than McCain's (which, though basically boilerplate thrown together so indifferently that it's ungrammatical,* is vouchers all the way). Along with the Slate article please give this a serious look: http://obama.3cdn.net/a8dfc36246b3dcc3cb_iem6bxpgh.pdf
(If there's a John McCain detailed education plan at his site please give me the link - I dont see one.)
"Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq."
Keep in mind with the economy in the state it's in, a lot of programs that sounded wonderful in January will have to be truncated, delayed or even abandoned. Obama also has always insisted that parental responsibility is #1, and with a new atmosphere of positive momentum in the country, who knows, it could happen.
I dont know that Obama's "in the pocket of the NEA." Maybe so, but he also told them in his speech thanking them for their endorsement that he supports merit pay, and I know they dont like that.
* - "John McCain Will Provide Effective Education Leadership. He believes we should invest in people, parents and reward achievement."
That is Obama's voice. He was being interviewed after the release of his book, Dreams from My Father.
In the context of that portion of the interview, Obama is claiming that 'white' suburban executives don't want to pay taxes to inner-city schools. This shows a startling lack of understanding of how school funding works in Illinois.
Illinois public schools are funded mostly by their respective districts' real estate taxes. The rest is funded by state taxpayers on a need-based sliding scale. The result of that is that those 'white' executives fund their own schools at a level of about 95%, and also provide about 30% of the Chicago Public Schools' budget. So, those 'white' suburban executives are paying for their own schools and Chicago's schools.
Furthermore, if Chicago's schools need more funding (they don't - they already spend more than $11,000 per student per year), they should be raising property taxes on Chicago properties; there's a lot of pricey properties in Chicago - for example, Obama's $1.2 million home on which he paid $14,559 in real estate tax in 2006. 5040 S Greenwood Ave, Chicago, IL 60615 | Zillow Real Estate
If anything, it's OBAMA who is unwilling to pay for inner-city schools.
As far as that interview - Obama could have left this as a dispute between city and suburban taxpayers and leave it at that (though as explained above, he still would have been inaccurate in his conclusion), but instead - he deliberately chose to deride 'whites' in what he mistakenly believed was school funding inequity.
Obama's scapegoating 'white' suburban taxpayers in this way, without understanding what's really going on with school funding, shows a decidedly anti-white bias on his part - very much like the anti-white rantings of Rev. Wright and the Black Liberation Theology church Obama belonged to for 20 years, got married in, and where he had his kids baptized.
Obama has mellowed his 'pitch' to be more palatable to the masses during this Presidential election season, but he has a strong decades-long background of antipathy towards 'whites.' In this interview in which he discusses the inner-city school funding issue, Obama is racist and wrong.
Any comments on Obama showing his true, uncensored, anti-'white' bias, without even bothering to find out the actual facts of who is paying more and who is paying less to support inner-city schools?
Third: Please tell me why "white executives that live in the suburbs need to be 'responsible' and pay for inner city kids to go to school?" (Not to mention that they already are)
I don't know how public K-12 education is funded in Illinois, but here the poorer districts get equalization money from the state so that we don't have so many "rich districts" and poor districts". There are also limits on how much a district can tax itself, for the same reason. See, we're all a bunch of socialists out here! Who woulda thunk it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
