Well, it's generally true. The issue is what's defined as a problem. You can't throw more money at a school for snakes and have them compete with humans. I don't know what people are thinking. We could fix a lot of liberal stupidity just by requiring that laws and appropriations designed to achieve a specific purpose also spell out what empirical measurements will be improved, by how much, and on what schedule. Then the law or appropriation is automatically rescinded if those milestones are not met. You want a law to force niggers into college ahead of white? You have to specify what this will achieve in empirical terms, like "It will result in a 50% increase the the number of nigger college graduates within 10 years, and 25% within 5." If you get to year 5 and it's not 25%, POW! The law is out.