Stop with the one sided obfuscation, and WaPo quotes. Try a little objectivity: In 31 months of Barack Obama’s presidency, according to the Treasury and CBS News, the US has added $4 trillion to its national debt. That approaches the presidential record set by George W. Bush of $4.9 trillion, but there’s a catch to that. Bush set that record in two terms — in 96 months. So, with only one-third of the time Bush spent running the nation, Obama has presided over nearly the same sum in debt acquisition. Morrissey points out that Bush added a monumental $51 billion per month to the nation’s debt during his presidency. But, Obama, with only 31 months in the White House, has presided over an average monthly rate of $129 billion (or 152...

*I asked a Lib if ethanol subsidies were continued and extended under Democrat rule, and if Solyna wasn't an example of Chicago style politics, he said "No." *I asked a lib if the Wall Street fiasco was prompted by a banning of normal credit procedures by government intervention, even as the SEC and other agencies warned against it, he said "No." * I asked a lib if a tripling in the national debt since the Obama administration took office wasn't dangerous, he said "No." * I asked if government policy requiring that private insurers and companies offer policies to those who couldn't afford them was constitutional, he said "Yes." .... and so on. And you complain about social engineering in the Middle East? Don't need to look that far. ...

..."empowerment" means female power over the family. The results are obvious even as we debate cause.

As in most analyses, even conservative ones looking at the feminst revolution, some basic facts remain: a. Women decide if conception occurs, by law. If men decide it's rape. b. Women decide if a child is a fetus or an inconenience. Woman's right to choose, men's obligation to pay. c. IF she cannot fund her "choices," she has the "option" of having either the man (child support) or the government (welfare, AFDC, etc.) pay. This is evolutionary biology of at it's most basic- who "controls" the progeny? If we wish men to continue to "invest" more fully in their children, we must remove the disincentives to this involvement. Even Mona doesn't get this. This has never been about irresponsible men, it's about lib fems who thiink...

Not true. Controlling for income, race and other factors, families with a strong work ethic, and family values do better. 2nd & 3rd generation Asian Americans are a good example: no English, but they work hard, get an education, and rely on each other. This is the road to sucess, not assuring equal outcomes even if you don't work for it.

Thanks for pointing this out. I think I had a "debate" with Sybil some months ago...

I would dispute your findings, especially over the long term, as would many. Parental income is not the only determinant of intergenerational mobility, and the studies you cite make reference to a very recent period only. See: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/income-mobility-and-the-fallacy-of-class-warfare

You might be a liberal if... African-American, Qu**r and Women’s Studies prepare young people for good careers, but a biology, engineering or math major are outdated relics of white, misogynist domination.

Hey, Simon, your assertion that Mary's assertion is a winner in the "Stupid & Proud" award I find hateful. Perhaps you shoudn't have put it in writing; now I can call the UK PC police and have them insist you be tolerant and diverse in your hate speech. After the apology, I expect they'll want you to copy NOW, MSNBC, & and call them also winners in the "Avoid Fact at All Costs" category, so we all all equally offended- or offensive . Whatever. (It's important to avoid appearances of favortism.)

I hate to admit it but Cal is right. Just google social stratification- societies have done it since Noah climbed out of the ark.