Posted on 08/05/2012 7:18:07 AM PDT by KeyLargo
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com
Burn Down the Suburbs? By Stanley Kurtz August 1, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Editors Note: This article is adapted from Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, by Stanley Kurtz, from Sentinel HC.
President Obama is not a fan of Americas suburbs. Indeed, he intends to abolish them. With suburban voters set to be the swing constituency of the 2012 election, the administrations plans for this segment of the electorate deserve scrutiny. Obama is a longtime supporter of regionalism, the idea that the suburbs should be folded into the cities, merging schools, housing, transportation, and above all taxation. To this end, the president has already put programs in place designed to push the country toward a sweeping social transformation in a possible second term. The goal: income equalization via a massive redistribution of suburban tax money to the cities.
Obamas plans to undercut the political and economic independence of Americas suburbs reach back decades. The community organizers who trained him in the mid-1980s blamed the plight of cities on taxpayer flight to suburbia. Beginning in the mid-1990s, Obamas mentors at the Gamaliel Foundation (a community-organizing network Obama helped found) formally dedicated their efforts to the budding fight against suburban sprawl. From his positions on the boards of a couple of left-leaning Chicago foundations, Obama channeled substantial financial support to these efforts. On entering politics, he served as a dedicated ally of his mentors anti-suburban activism.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I have been thinking of this issue since I read the article on Rush and listened to Levin’s show the other night.
I was trying to think of how these policies would be implemented. The only thing that I could imagine it that the old time-honored standby: let the vandals loose to loot and pillage the countryside. Withdraw law enforcement from the rural areas that these policies would be supported to depopulate the countryside.
Only wealthy with security (read standing armies) would be able to stay in the countryside. This is becomeing more and more like 18th and 19th century England when the lands men were run off and the lands reverted to the nobility and gentry.
We are paddling way backwards folks.
see post 61
A lot of the new building is instead over in Dundee, Plymouth, Canton, South Lyon, or Livingston County
Take a ride down 94 from Ann Arbor to Kalamazoo. Most of it is very rural and the I-94 corridor the most heavily populated swath across the state.
The utter stupidity of the whole thing is amazing. We’re going to buy up farmland and let it return to wilderness while they talk about farming in Detroit.
Doesn’t baraq own a house in a chicago suburb?
So does the rule apply to him?
ok, big time sarcasm here.
These measures won’t cut costs. They’ll just give them more taxpayers to squeeze.
“These measures wont cut costs. Theyll just give them more taxpayers to squeeze.”
Yes, and the direction of these big Democrat cities is to merge city, county and state functions in order to seize more tax money for redistribution to the cities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.