If the USA is not the “top country” in which to be born, why do so many people around the world dream of coming here? And why do so many risk everything to become part of the American Dream ?

Last time I checked, no one was trying to sneak over the border to Iceland. Or Somalia.

But since Booker has decided to pander to the Hate-America crowd, here’s a suggestion for his campaign slogan:

Make America ‘Meh’ Again

Via Free Beacon.

Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) questioned the veracity of the American Dream on Tuesday, saying the United States is not necessarily “the top country” to be born today.

Booker appeared on the “Pitchfork Economics” podcast with co-hosts Nick Hanauer and David Goldstein to discuss multiple issues, including the economy and poverty rates.

The senator contrasted the conditions in America today with those in the 1930s, a time known as “the Great Depression,” when his father was born.

“Even if you were a black guy like my dad and you were going to pick a country to be born in, the United States would be at the top of your list because we were expanding middle class at a rate that was creating opportunity,” Booker said.

Booker, who announced earlier this month he was running for president, went on to say that for those born on planet Earth today, the United States is not necessarily the best place to live because of one’s ability to get out of poverty….

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
2 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. MACVEL says:

    Lowest black unemployment ever, AND there is no Jim Crow as in the 30s. No German POWs complaining that they had more rights here than the blacks did, in and after WWII.

    Sailors say they’ve been around the world, but nothing is like USA.

    What does Booker want? The Soviet Union? Venezuela? Or even better, Treblinka?

  2. Pat_S says:

    What exactly do statistical measurements of poverty levels and economic mobility prove? If the standard of living keeps rising with a somewhat steady “poverty” percentage, that is not a dead end poverty problem. Are the “mobility” numbers in Scandinavian countries a function of government welfare? You’re still relatively poor and going nowhere only now you have no incentive to try to improve. That’s not the kind of mobility they were talking about in his Dad’s day.

    Besides, it’s difficult for a country to lower poverty numbers when legions of very poor people come into the country so easily. Would they change their minds if they knew America ranks lower than first in some statistical hokus pokus studies?

You must be logged in to post a comment.