Study: Wealth gap widened for blacks, Latinos

[smoked trout]

Show me a plan to moves people from poverty to self-sustenance and you can have my money.

Isn't there a program to 'encourage' or help in home ownership? Maybe I'm thinking of a state plan... anyway, it's a plan to help low income people secure affordable mortgages. Don't know much about it, but that to me is the type of program we need, helping people to secure their own wealth/property. I'm sure it involves dealing with bad or no credit. Government incentives should provide incentives for the poor to raise their status, whether through education or helping to secure property. The giveaways never worked, never will.

[jimzinsocal]

Enlighten him further and he opens a seafood restaurant.

^^^

And he gives up when he's taxed to death....which is a roundabout way of destroying the motivation to succeed....to excel. When the incentive to have more is removed...not much point in being a lion...when government forces you to share every meal.

[myv65]

You are "strawmanning" my argument. Read it again, and think about the meaning of my words. I never said I wanted your money. I wasn't arguing anything to do with tax dollars. If you've seen my posts in previous threads, I've often said that one "conservative" ideal that I hold is this one: "give a man a fish and he eats for one day, teach a man to fish and he eats fish for a lifetime". Tax dollars are not the answer, as the education system has clearly shown. Lack of education, and self-worth is the problem. And it's a downward spiral that is hard to get out of with the type of education some of these children get. I don't want your money, I want your time and effort.

Fair enough. I fully understand the meaning of what you have written, but yours is a "minority" viewpoint among the liberal class. The key is indeed as you have written, but I question whether or not this is what the liberals really strive toward. There is no shortage of people willing to spend tax money on yet another program. Sadly there *is* a shortage of people willing to roll up their sleeves and get to the business of helping.

Often times I think the only difference is that the conservatives say, "Screw it. I've provided the opportunity. They should help themselves." The liberals say, "Oh how I want to help. Please give me your money so that I may give it to them." Neither side has a monopoly on actually making a difference and far too often each side sits on the sidelines hand-wringing rather than doing.

[TacticalNuke]

*BBBZZZZTTTT* wrong!

Alcohol is illegal, kids still use it. Cigarettes are illegal, kids still use them. People start drugs when they're young (most likely below what would be a legal drug age) and thus I don't expect them to wait if it's "legal" at some predetermined age.

[fireman_x]

If drugs were legalized they'd be FDA regulated and hence more expensive. There'd still be a drug underground and we'd still have the same problem. Addicts would still steal stuff, because the reason they must still is not because it's illegal, but because they have no money. Your logic is quite flawed.

My logic is perfect, yours is nonexistant. Look at the prices of pharmacuticals(Xanax) compared to cocaine, their is no way that if cocaine was legalized, the price could go any higher. The reasons as to why drugs are so expensive is mainly due to the risks involved in transport and delivery, not the supply and the "War on Drugs" has proventhat by failing in it's "mission" and antagonizing and terrorizing Central and South American countries.

Being in college I know people (that know people, of course) that could easlily get their hands on anything with an hour, the illegalization of drugs means nothing but a higher price. Some theives steal just to steal, but if you've ever seen a crackhead or a herion addict in person you would realize that when they get desperate for a hit they will do anthing (steal, rob, kill). You claim that there would still be a drug underground even if it was legalized, really? Please show me where the alcohol underground is then, remember alcohol was made illegal and the problems associated with it were only exacerbated. Who even says that the FDA would have to regulate it, does the FDA regulate cigarettes and alcohol?

If the FDA regulated cigarettes this would most likely happen :

If that effort succeeds -- if the FDA mandates "nicotine-free cigarettes," for example -- the inevitable outcome will be a flourishing black market. Tobacco will become the new "forbidden fruit" as criminal gangs hook underage smokers on an adulterated product freed of all constraints on quality that competitive markets normally afford. Neither the FDA nor even the U.S. Congress should be entrusted to make basic consumer choices for individuals. At most, government might disseminate information on product safety and efficacy (although private companies could do that job better). That leaves individuals free to make their own decisions.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/closetohome/.../regulate.html

If you actually believe that the legalization of drugs would cause more crime you seriously need to take some economics courses and learn how markets (legal and otherwise) work. Also what is your reasoning for having no problem with alcohol and cigarettes but think that the govt. has the right to tell you what you can do to you body when it comes to certain drugs? I don't smoke weed but I can't see any feasible reason for keeping it illegal.