Reverse Racism

[Darunia]

Resignation For Disc. Against White Farmer


I find this really curious. From the video, it seems very clear, from the way she sarcastically rolled her voice "soooo", that she is discriminating. The NAACP even called her out on it, citing it as "shameful." Obviously, now that the shit hit the fan, she's backtracking and casting herself as innocent.

I think she was being discriminatory and she's just trying to save her ass now.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, the discrimination seems clear to me too... firing her was the right move.

[Unreadphilosophy]

This was such a classic moment. So much for the so-called "racism" that they're supposedly fighting.

I knew something like was going to manifest.

[A Black Falcon]

So the full speech sort of exonerates her, quite unsurprisingly when you read that it was Andrew Breitbart who made that clip (I didn't know that until today...). What I do find odd, though, is that the NAACP now claims to have been fooled by him, while supposedly they had a copy of the whole speech themselves the whole time... what, did they not go and actually watch it before saying how wrong she was, or something?

[Dark Jaguar]

"Reverse" Darunia? As in, it's the opposite of the way you're SUPPOSED to be racist? It's just racism.

[EdenMaster]

"Reverse" Darunia? As in, it's the opposite of the way you're SUPPOSED to be racist? It's just racism.

Indeed. Racism is not something only white people are capable of.

[A Black Falcon]

Context for why she had racism issues she had to get over (and she did, the full story is about how she did end up helping the white farmer in the story and did save his farm):

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/21/s...tml?hpt=T2

[Dark Jaguar]

Undoubtedly the majority of racist black people in America (and other places, like South Africa) is a result of the racism of previous generations. It's that classic "cycle of hatred" that pointing out the evils of racism is meant to put a stop to.

[Weltall]

"Reverse" Darunia?

"Actually, sir, I believe it is actually you who is a nigger."

[Darunia]

How is she exonerated with the rest of the speech? In what context could that highly sarcastic tone of hers not have been blatantly what it seemed?

Indeed. Racism is not something only white people are capable of.

Gee, I'm glad you people are here to tell me the obvious things in life. Which way is up again?

[Dark Jaguar]

No one's saying it's okay.

[A Black Falcon]

However, the incident took place decades before she joined the department, and her speech in its unedited form made the point that people should move beyond race. In addition, the white farmer who Sherrod mentioned has told reporters that she helped him save his farm.

-Sherrod's father was murdered by a white man in an argument "over a farm animal" back in the '60s or '70s. The all-white jury, of course, refused to convict him.
-The incident was 24 years ago, when Sherrod was working for an organization that helped black people keep their farms. This white man wanted her to help him save his farm too; her first reaction was that depicted in the clip.
-However, as she thought about it, she realized that the real issue was no black and white, but rich and poor, and what she really wanted to do was help poor people. So she helped the farmer, did save his farm, and set on the path of what she's been doing for decades now, helping poor farmers.

The full video is of her going through the whole story. Breitbart, the master manipulator who took down Acorn based on lies and exaggerations, was trying to do something similar to the NAACP with this one. Fortunately, the outcry lasted only about a day, because as soon as people watched the whole video, they realized how decietful Breitbart's clip was.

No one's saying it's okay.

Considering the context and the complete story... sure, her reaction at the time wasn't okay, but the story is of her getting past that racism, and the personal reason why she didn't like white people to begin with. The entire story is a very positive one.

[Darunia]

That does seem to explain it then.

[A Black Falcon]

Breitbart's the one behind the "pimp and whore going to Acorn offices trying to get funding" thing that did so much damage to that organization... he's good at what he does. This time, though, the story turned on him much more quickly than last time...

Specifically, he wanted something to say against the NAACP for its recent statement condemning the Tea Party movement (which Breitbart likes quite a lot) for its racism. He thought this clip would do the job.

[Darunia]

That ACORN thing you can't deny was wrong. They had to be punished for that. That wasn't staged and it wasn't in context.

[A Black Falcon]

It was staged in that the video only showed the very few Acorn offices that actually helped the two people, not any of the others that refused them... and that only very low level people gave them any kind of assistance, not anyone with authority... that the tapes were edited to make it look as bad as possible for the ACORN employees, while the truth (and the complete videos) was much less clear... and of course in that its goal was not exposing anything, but destroying an organization dedicated to helping poor people, the kind of people who Republicans dislike the most. Republicans think that you should only help the rich, not the poor. That in this case they actually succeeded is incredibly tragic for all the poor people who now will suffer because that agency is gone... yes, ACORN obviously had some issues, but the good they did was certainly much, much more.

See this for an even description of the whole thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2009_...ontroversy

[Darunia]

God, look at him squirm under the spotlight. You can't deny that at some level the organization was corrupt. If a mid-level bureaucrat in any corporation is engaged in illegal activities, the company as a whole is scrutinized. If you go to McDonald's, and the guy serving your burger glares at you and spits in your food, McDonalds is at fault. ACORN is responsible for its people. You can minimize the fault till your ass bleeds, but there was fault, it was illegal, and the shit hit the fan.

"Republicans think that you should only help the rich, not the poor. "

You really are an idiot for spewing that kind of simple-minded leftist dogmatic propaganda. There is an incredibly vast spectrum of Republicans, as there is of Democrats. They range from financial conservatives to social conservatives, and all in-between; and that's only one axis of the spectrum. If you really believe that "Republicans think that you should only help the rich, not the poor," then there's no more point in discussing this with you.

[A Black Falcon]

You really are an idiot for spewing that kind of simple-minded leftist dogmatic propaganda. There is an incredibly vast spectrum of Republicans, as there is of Democrats. They range from financial conservatives to social conservatives, and all in-between; and that's only one axis of the spectrum. If you really believe that "Republicans think that you should only help the rich, not the poor," then there's no more point in discussing this with you.

Yes, there are many kinds of Republicans, but one of the few things that unites almost all of them is support for fiscal policies which are beneficial to big business, large corporations, and the rich, and opposition to policies which help the poor and middle class. Denial of that fact is pure political spin. And libertarians certainly aren't exempt, they want to rid us of burdensome government legislation that restricts corporations from being able to do anything they want. The results of such actions should be obvious, as anyone who heard Rand Paul say that the government should stop "picking on" BP should make very clear. Or that suddenly Republicans care oh so much about deficits, while they didn't care at all about them a few years ago when it was Republican priorities like more tax cuts for the rich that were building up our deficits to record levels... the transparency of their political opportunism is blatant. If they get power again, their current "fiscal discipline" thing will vanish in a flash, just as it did under Reagan and Bush. They're only complaining because it's Democratic priorities like propping up the economy, keeping us out of depression, and helping poor and middle class people that we're spending our money on.

This might be slightly exaggerated, but when it comes to members of congress, probably not, really. The only thing that's ludicrous is that anyone actually believes that Republicans care much about deficits, after their last several presidents have all ran up record deficits and national debts, while Democratic ones have been much more fiscally disciplined.

I mean, I know a few people in the Republican party really do care about the debt. The vast, vast majority though, all of the ones who marched in lockstep behind George W. Bush, do not.


For example, see the book "What's the Matter with Kansas?", which examines why Plains America votes Republican, strongly against their economic interests, in part because of cultural issues like gay marriage and abortion. Social conservatives and the business, etc. wing are the two major Republican branches, and the agreement between them basically seems to be that no matter which side individual people are on, the party as a whole is supposed to do both things... I know some social conservatives were annoyed at Bush for not doing even more than he did, but given how much he did, I don't know how good a criticism that is. So anyway, sure, some social conservatives probably don't care as much about the economic stuff... but when it comes to policy, that doesn't matter. The Republican party in congress always works as a unit, dissent is not often allowed... it isn't as democratic, but it does mean they get more done than the Democrats do...

[Darunia]

...support for fiscal policies which are beneficial to big business, large corporations, and the rich, and opposition to policies which help the poor and middle class.

It's very true that Republicans do favor policies that help businesses stay competitive. Everyone knows that in the businessworld, it's a cut-throat, Darwinian theater. Republicans do tend to support big-businesses, but not at the expense of anyone else. You like to say they don't care for the poor, but that's not at all true. Republicans support the middle, working class. They do not necessarily, however, have much tolerance for the poor Welfare leaches that your on the left cater to. Republicans believe in a hard-working middle class, and in case you didn't notice, the hard-working middle class is vastly Republican. One minute, you depict all Republicans as rich white men, the next, they're all poor trashy white people. At least be consistent with your stereotypes: are they all poor white racist trash, or rich Scrooge-types?


Or that suddenly Republicans care oh so much about deficits, while they didn't care at all about them a few years ago

Denial that Republicans are, on the whole, financially in favor of less government, less bureaucracy, lower (OVERALL) taxes, is ignorant. Dem's deny that this is their platform because it wins votes. Obviously, there are exceptions on both sides. Ben Nelson is a fiscal cons. Dem. from Nebraska. And there are probably more frivolous Republicans as well.

If they get power again, their current "fiscal discipline" thing will vanish in a flash, just as it did under Reagan and Bush.

First of all, we'll see about that in November. Second, you blame Bush for the disaster of 9-11? As if Afghanistan was his fault... approved by congress, heralded abroad by an international coalition... you can't blame him because that fell on his lap during his watch any more than you can blame the cost of WWII on FDR. Iraq, while in hindsight a colossal mistake, was also approved by congress... including many of your favorist socialists. Beyond these, what other spending are you referring to?


They're only complaining because it's Democratic priorities like propping up the economy, keeping us out of depression, and helping poor and middle class people that we're spending our money on.

Propping up the economy you say? By EXPLODING the national debt? I must say, the economy surely is trucking along now... however many hundreds of billions of dollars they irresponsibly spent.. it seems to be... well, not working, but... they meant well, so it's OK. Helping the poor? I assume you mean welfare and unemployed. And our friend Ben Nelson agreed that, extending unemployment benies MUST BE PAID FOR FIRST... which was not at all to say that it would not have been passed, but, once again, the Republicans sought FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO SPENDING. The Dems refused, and passed more unpaid-for legislation. And the middle class? How are the Dems helping them out again?

The only thing that's ludicrous is that anyone actually believes that Republicans care much about deficits, after their last several presidents have all ran up record deficits and national debts, while Democratic ones have been much more fiscally disciplined.

They're not fiscally disciplined.

I mean, I know a few people in the Republican party really do care about the debt. The vast, vast majority though, all of the ones who marched in lockstep behind George W. Bush, do not.

Such is an opinion, and a biased one at that.


The Republican party in congress always works as a unit, dissent is not often allowed... it isn't as democratic, but it does mean they get more done than the Democrats do...

The Republicans always work as a unit, whereas the enlightened, holier-than-thou democrats all vote independently... which is, to say, that over the past 1.5 years, all these times that both parties have voted strictly along party lines, like in the stimulus, health care... that was actually that the Republicans all voted along party lines because they're simple-minded dolts, and the Dems all voted upon party lines because they're all free-thinking individuals who just arbitrarily arrived at a consensus.

[A Black Falcon]

Denial that Republicans are, on the whole, financially in favor of less government, less bureaucracy, lower (OVERALL) taxes, is ignorant. Dem's deny that this is their platform because it wins votes. Obviously, there are exceptions on both sides. Ben Nelson is a fiscal cons. Dem. from Nebraska. And there are probably more frivolous Republicans as well.

Ah yes, Republicans and small government...

If Republicans are such fans of small government, why did the government grow to its largest size ever under the Bush II administration? :)

I know, the excuse is "9/11 made us". But the committed conservative -- which of course Bush was not, and nor is most of his party -- would not have done it even so... because Republicans have found that, while they love to attack "big government" when out of power, when actually IN power, they find it very hard to reduce its size at all, and usually just end up making it bigger anyway, just with less of the size increase actually paid for.

First of all, we'll see about that in November. Second, you blame Bush for the disaster of 9-11? As if Afghanistan was his fault... approved by congress, heralded abroad by an international coalition... you can't blame him because that fell on his lap during his watch any more than you can blame the cost of WWII on FDR. Iraq, while in hindsight a colossal mistake, was also approved by congress... including many of your favorist socialists. Beyond these, what other spending are you referring to?

I wasn't referring to wars, actually, but the Republican party's love for unfunded tax cuts.

Essentially, spending increases that are going towards health care, the environment, financial reform, saving the economy from dropping into depression, helping unemployed and poor people, etc. is all unacceptable, and must be countered by other cuts to "fund" it.

However, revenue decreases on giant tax cuts very heavily weighted towards benefiting the rich many times more than anyone else? Those don't need to be funded with anything! Both Reagan and Bush II pushed the federal debt to record levels, thanks to their tax cuts. The same goes for military spending -- No military spending increase needs to be paid for. Just borrow it all from China. Oh, the Republicans will try to cut a few social programs to fund a tiny percent of it, rail about earmarks perhaps which are a minuscule percent of the federal budget, etc, but that only pays for a tiny fraction of their spending.

Look at a chart of the federal deficit in the past few decades. It goes way up under Reagan and Bush I, begins to decline under Clinton until he actually starts posting some surpluses, and then jumps back to giant record-setting levels under Bush II as he spends those surpluses on huge tax cuts for the rich and more military spending.

You cannot increase spending and decease taxes without there being huge consequences down the road! This has been proven over and over and over, and yet the Republican party keeps doing it, ruining the economy every time. First it was the recession that defeated Bush I, then the recession we're in now... both were caused or made much worse by Republican economic policies.

It's very true that Republicans do favor policies that help businesses stay competitive. Everyone knows that in the businessworld, it's a cut-throat, Darwinian theater. Republicans do tend to support big-businesses, but not at the expense of anyone else. You like to say they don't care for the poor, but that's not at all true. Republicans support the middle, working class. They do not necessarily, however, have much tolerance for the poor Welfare leaches that your on the left cater to. Republicans believe in a hard-working middle class, and in case you didn't notice, the hard-working middle class is vastly Republican. One minute, you depict all Republicans as rich white men, the next, they're all poor trashy white people. At least be consistent with your stereotypes: are they all poor white racist trash, or rich Scrooge-types?

The poor white people voting Republican are the ones I've referred to several times as being the ones either voting Republican only for social reasons (that is because they oppose gays, abortion, etc.) or because they've been conned into supporting economic policies devastating to their own economic status, maybe because they think that if they ever suddenly got rich, then they'd prefer the Republican way...

Such is an opinion, and a biased one at that.

No, it's not opinion.



See how it goes way, way up under Reagan and the Bushes, and down under Clinton? Yeah.

On that note...

Propping up the economy you say? By EXPLODING the national debt? I must say, the economy surely is trucking along now... however many hundreds of billions of dollars they irresponsibly spent.. it seems to be... well, not working, but... they meant well, so it's OK. Helping the poor? I assume you mean welfare and unemployed. And our friend Ben Nelson agreed that, extending unemployment benies MUST BE PAID FOR FIRST... which was not at all to say that it would not have been passed, but, once again, the Republicans sought FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PRIOR TO SPENDING. The Dems refused, and passed more unpaid-for legislation. And the middle class? How are the Dems helping them out again?

It's utterly unbelievable how the Republican Party has proven in the past few years that they have learned absolutely nothing from the Great Depression... I thought we had learned in the 1930s that the way you get out of depression or recession is via government spending. That it was indelibly proven by how the depression hit its lowest point in 1937, after the government decided to cut back on recovery spending and instead go for "financial responsibility" which of course completely sabotaged the recovery and made things infinitely worse, similar to as is happening this year as Republicans block every measure aimed at helping us out of this recession. Obviously not, so instead we repeat the mistakes of the past, and suffer needlessly for it. It's ridiculously stupid...

The way you get out of recession or depression is by spending. Only after the recession is over can you then go back to financial discipline. That is how things work. The reason why the economy is heading downhill this summer is because no more stimulus is getting passed, more than anything else.

Republican denial on this this recession, which is almost exactly identical to Herbert Hoover's "do nothing" policy about the Great Depression, is failing just as badly now as it did in the 1930s. Only the recovery bills that we did get passed, some with Bush's support because he evidently cared a little more about saving the economy than most of his party does, kept things from getting much worse... but by quitting on recovery now, as I said, we repeat 1937, albeit on a smaller scale because of the comparably lesser recession now.

They're not fiscally disciplined.

See chart above. If the Democrats aren't financially disciplined, the Republicans are many times worse. Bush was unbelievably borrow-happy, increasing our debt many times. He borrowed every penny we spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and never included either war in the normal military budgets -- both were paid for exclusively by supplementals. Obama ended that and put most military expenditures on the normal budget, which accounts for a big part of the "budget increase" under Obama -- he simply moved the massive expenses of the war from the cover of secrecy to the light of day. He's also promised to reduce deficits, as soon as we're recovered enough to begin to do so; I have no doubt he will, just like Clinton. Democrats are much better at actually paying for things they spend money on than Republicans. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will be a good start towards that... you simply can't increase the size of government and decrease collected revenue, as Republicans have done since Reagan, it's insane long-term policy!

[Darunia]

If Republicans are such fans of small government, why did the government grow to its largest size ever under the Bush II administration?

Well Mr. Smartass, something called 9-11 happened and it entailed emergency ad hoc spending to face the new threat. New departments and agencies had to be created on the spot to cope with this. Furthermore, what you say is misleading. You say it grew to it's largest size ever under him. Which, erroneously, suggests that it exploded and mushroomed under him. Indeed, if he inherited a government of any size, and added one federal employee more than there was before him, then he technically made it grow to it's largest size ever. If President A spends a trillion and hires a hundred thousand new bureaucrats, then leaves office, and then President B comes in, and hires a new secretary, the gov. is the biggest it's ever been under him. That doesn't make him responsible for the vast waste that has been accrued over decades by his predecessors. Bad logic and bad argument.

which of course Bush was not, and nor is most of his party -- would not have done it even so...

Another erroneous assumption of yours that I support or care about Bush. Attacking him doesn't bruise my ego. And you are nobody to make declarations of what the GoP WOULD have done in alternative circumstances. You do not know, and your theories are speculation. Let's keep this within the realm of the empirical.

Essentially, spending increases that are going towards health care... etc. is all unacceptable, and must be countered by other cuts to "fund" it.

I'm glad we agree on this.

However, revenue decreases on giant tax cuts very heavily weighted towards benefiting the rich many times more than anyone else? Those don't need to be funded with anything! Both Reagan and Bush II pushed the federal debt to record levels, thanks to their tax cuts.

I'm amazed that with all of the federal spending from 1982-1992, you were, miraculously, able to localize that the federal debt increased solely because of this legislation. The sheer number of manhours you must have spent going through tomes immemorial of numbers and figures... the numbercrunching you must have done to have been able to conclude, "of all gov. spending 1982-1992, it was tax cuts that increased the deficit, a deficit which otherwise would have (what, fallen? you tell me).


The same goes for military spending -- No military spending increase needs to be paid for.

Your arguments seem to boil down to angry accusations and generalizations. "No military spending increase needs to be paid for." That is not an argument, and it cannot stand. If you're going to slap me with commie rhetoric, do your research and link me something tangible, where a GOP congressman proclaims that, or, alternatively, link me five (5) instances where a GOP majority has passed military spending bills, unfunded. If you cannot, then your argument is not attainable.


Oh just borrow it all from China. Oh, the Republicans will try to cut a few social programs to fund a tiny percent of it, rail about earmarks perhaps which are a minuscule percent of the federal budget, etc, but that only pays for a tiny fraction of their spending.

Miniscule social programs? Welfare (which I assume is what you're referring to) is slated in 2010 to cost 762.3 billion (with a B) dollars. That makes it the biggest over-all price-item after Defense, Education, Health Care and Pensions. You don't help your argument by minimizing something as big as 3/4ths of a trillion dollars. And earmarks are wrong no matter who does them. I feel more and more like I'm arguing with a sarcstic little teenager than anything else, because so many of your arguments are poised in a pseudo-Republican form, as if coming from then lips of an arch-Republican. Sarcasm doesn't help your argument.

Welfare and Gov't Spending

Look at a chart of the federal deficit in the past few decades. It goes way up under Reagan and Bush I, begins to decline under Clinton until he actually starts posting some surpluses, and then jumps back to giant record-setting levels under Bush II as he spends those surpluses on huge tax cuts for the rich and more military spending.

Ostensibly that does seem to be the way the graph looked, but neither you nor I understand what was spent on what, and like it or not, 9/11 happened and threw the budget into chaos. Just because you don't like me using that as a reason doesn't make it invalid.

You cannot increase spending and decease taxes without there being huge consequences down the road! This has been proven over and over and over, and yet the Republican party keeps doing it, ruining the economy every time. First it was the recession that defeated Bush I, then the recession we're in now... both were caused or made much worse by Republican economic policies.


That's damn strange, you must be talking about a different recession, because the one that my country is in now was caused by a cocktail of Barney Frank-backed legislation for low mortgages, and Wall Street irresponsibility. What magical fairy land recession are you talking about?

[Sacred Jellybean]

I'm pretty sure legislation for low mortgages costs only a small fraction of the deficit-spending involved in extending the tax-cuts for the wealthy that Bush put in place. If you can demonstrate that this is not the case, please do so. If republicans were really concerned about financial responsibility, they wouldn't want to extend Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy without making it budget-neutral -- which most of them do. And really, extending unemployment benefits is a pittance compared to the tax cuts. The tax cuts would cost 3.7 trillion (with a T) over 10 years, compared to the 34 billion of the extended unemployment. I won't argue that the irresponsibility on Wall Street was also a driving-force behind the recession, though.

And really, why should the wealthy be rewarded with tax-savings over people who are struggling to buy a house? They're already being rewarded by having a higher income than others -- and that's fine, that's the way it should be, but they must also be taxed at a higher rate, given that they can spare more money.

You really can't defend the assertion that Republicans care about poor people as much as wealthy people. The attitude is basically: "Poor? Get a better job, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, ANYONE can be rich if they're smart or hard-working, you're just lazy. Rich? Contratulations, welcome to the club, here's some tax cuts, you obviously deserve every penny." I'll admit that's hyperbole, but it's the general sentiment.

It reminds me of a Slaughterhouse Five passage:

While the British colonel set Lazzaro's broken arm and mixed plaster for the cast, the German major translated out passages from Howard W. Campbell Jr's monograph. Campbell had been a well-known playwright at one time. His opening line was this one:

America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, "It ain't no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be." It is in fact a crime for Americans to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is poor himself, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: "If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" There will also be an American flag no larger than a child's hand - glued to a lolipop stick and flying from the cash register.

...

Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue, the monograph went on. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknewledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say, Napoleonic times.

[A Black Falcon]

Darunia, you're so obviously so (willfully) ignorant about even the most basic economics that I don't know if there's much point in even talking to you... I'm not good at economics and don't like them very much, but at least I can understand some of the basics. You obviously don't have any interest in even going that far. It makes debating somewhat pointless...

Over the past thirty years, Reagan/Bush economic policies have led to a nearly unprescedented in American history level of separation between the rich and the poor. The rich have gotten richer, and richer, and richer, while the poor and middle class fall farther and farther behind. Clinton slowed down this curve for a few years, but it jumped right back after Bush took over, as expected. Obama's now trying to reduce it again, and give the poor and middle class a chance again, and the Republicans are of course howling in outrage...

So what's the Republicans' plan, if they win back the House?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/...hp?ref=fpb

In a meeting with several reporters this afternoon, House Minority Leader John Boehner outlined the top three measures he'd pursue if he becomes Speaker of the House next Congress to create new jobs. But, those who thought he'd outline specific programs and how they would create jobs were disappointed with a familiar litany of wish-list items: repeal health care reform, eschew climate legislation, and renew the Bush tax cuts.

In other words, repeal a program that largely hasn't yet taken effect; prevent new legislation that is also not in effect; and keep a current tax structure in place. Step four: profit. Or jobs.

They have no plans to actually do anything to improve the recession. As I said in my last post, just like during the Great Depression, the Republican platform is that the government should just stand back and watch the economy collapse, it's not government's role to reduce suffering, save the economy, or anything else. You'd think they'd have learned better by now... :(

[A Black Falcon]

You really can't defend the assertion that Republicans care about poor people as much as wealthy people. The attitude is basically: "Poor? Get a better job, pull yourself up by the bootstraps, ANYONE can be rich if they're smart or hard-working, you're just lazy. Rich? Contratulations, welcome to the club, here's some tax cuts, you obviously deserve every penny." I'll admit that's hyperbole, but it's the general sentiment.

Hyperbole? No, not really. Only in that they usually don't say that out loud, to the general public... but it's definitely exactly how they write policy.

[Sacred Jellybean]

Well, Republicans are for lower taxes in general, including the poor, which does put more money in their pockets. It's just that they're usually also in favor of lowering the taxes of the wealthy, which need it the least.

To play Devil's Advocate, their policy is of a more laizsez faire economic model, where lower taxes means that corporations can invest more money, create new jobs, and allow it to be a trickle-down effect, because it means more jobs for everyone. Which in theory sounds good, but if you don't keep strong regulation on the economy, we end up in a recession like we are now.

The problem is, over the last few decades, people have been working longer hours, while wages have stagnated. Profits and salaries for CEOs are higher, but the middle and lower classes haven't reaped as many benefits for this trickle-down effect. I can't really say whether it has made job-creation flourish because I'm not well-versed enough in economics, but there must have been some positive effect on businesses expanding. We just need more populist-focused policies so we can help everyone, not just the people who need help the least.

[Dark Jaguar]

In summery: It's all Ayn Rand's fault. She was a frickin' idiot in charge of a personality cult.

[Darunia]

Darunia, you're so obviously so (willfully) ignorant about even the most basic economics that I don't know if there's much point in even talking to you...

Explain yourself. While resorting to childish mud-slinging is quite in character with you, I still think it would be decent of you to tell me the base for such an accusation. Where have I demonstrated such a terrible ignorance of economics? And, supposing that I weren't gifted by the Christian Deity with a firm grasp of economics, is that really such an insurmountable obstacle to us fighting about politics? Obviously economics is closely tied to politics, but to argue that you need not talk to me because of a supposed lack of knowledged regarding economics would be like me saying to you, "You know so little about law, (or Dutch grammar for that matter) there's not point in even talking to you." The fact is, I know at least as much about economics as the next asshole, and probably a little more. The fact that you resorted, as I previously said, to more of this characteristic holier-than-thou egoism does nothing to aid your argument. In fact, it's a diversion... e.g., "ABF, the sky is blue!" "Nah-ah! You know so little about medieval Japanese theater, I don't even see a point in discussing the sky with you."

The above rant summarized:

Shut up and stay on topic.

I'm not good at economics and don't like them very much, but at least I can understand some of the basics. You obviously don't have any interest in even going that far. It makes debating somewhat pointless...

Explain yourself. Don't just make accusations, child. I thought we were talking politics, but if you want to fling mud about (of all things) economics, back yourself up. Where have I demonstrated such ignorance? Your argument seems to be, that if I don't agree with you, I know nothing about economics and am not worth talking to. Is that it?

Over the past thirty years, Reagan/Bush economic policies have led to a nearly unprescedented in American history level of separation between the rich and the poor. The rich have gotten richer, and richer, and richer, while the poor and middle class fall farther and farther behind. Clinton slowed down this curve for a few years, but it jumped right back after Bush took over, as expected. Obama's now trying to reduce it again, and give the poor and middle class a chance again,

First of all, this total equality of society you're toting sounds an awful lot like communism to me. While I hate rich people, I have to admit that there must be a social hierarchy. Rich assholes, and poor, dumb clots is the way the world always has been, and always will be. This dream of your's... this dream your share with Marx, and Lenin, and Stalin, and Castro, of a totally equal society is, firstly, impossible, and secondly, bad for society. You want to tax and punish the rich and hard-working to play Robin Hood with someone else's money? Communism doesn't work. "Give the poor and middle class a chance"... what kind of chance do you mean? By taxing the fuck out of the rich? What chance does this afford the poor? By giving them hand-outs? What is the end-goal here besides spitefully attacking the more fortunate? Say you get your way and tax the rich, and give it to the poor, and then we have a totally equal GDP, and everyone earns exactly 20,000 a year. Is that really the kind of crazy fucked-up world you want to live in? No reason to work hard, you'll never get ahead. No incentive to open a new factory, you can't profit from it. On the other hand, since Messiah ABF demands a totally egalitarian society, in which all are equal, if I do nothing, I still get my share.

You like talking economics? Let's talk about how grand and wonderful your Soviet economy was in 1989.

But, those who thought he'd outline specific programs and how they would create jobs were disappointed with a familiar litany of wish-list items: repeal health care reform, eschew climate legislation, and renew the Bush tax cuts.

Is that anything like people turning to the Democrats and pleading for economic recovery, and getting a trillion-dollar health-care-bill instead? But you're right. You can't trust Republicans with the economy. Why, if only we had a congress full of Dems, they'd get the job done! Oh, wait... we do... and what's that? Stagnation? Continued unemployment? Why--by golly, it's almost as though the Dem's are full of shit. But that can't be! Where was I.. oh, yea... DAMN REPUBLICANS HAVE NO PLAN HOW TO FIX ANYTHING!

Bottom line: It is HILARIOUS to bash the right about a theoretical ineptitude for solving the economy when your boys are in power, and have been for 2 years, and have gotten nothing done. Spending a trillion on economic stimulus sure did fuck up the deficit a bunch, and return no large-scale gains. YOU, as a self-proclaimed Socialist by-proxy, have NO right to LECTURE ANYONE on how to FIX THE ECONOMY.

the Republican platform is that ... it's not government's role to reduce suffering, save the economy, or anything else. You'd think they'd have learned better by now...

You're right in pointing out that that is, in fact their position. And they're right in that it is the correct method of government. The government should pave roads, regulate inter-state commerce, and provide for a common defense. This is where we disagree and go to different philosophies. You thinkg Fed Gov. should be ominous, all-powerful and all-doing. If taxes have to be exorbitant to feed this bureacratic juggernaut (and they would be,), so be it! I, on the other hand, think fed. gov. should be minimal. Cut the fat, trim the budgets, lower taxes, and put more in my pocket. This is also in-step with the Republican philosophy, no matter HOW much you bitch and whine about the GOP only being/caring for rich old white folk. I support small-gov't. And you, by your own admission, as quoted above, think it's the gov's place to end all evils and cure all wrongs. I say, pave my roads and leave me the fuck alone.

[Weltall]

One noteworthy thing: In the thirty years since Reagan was elected for the first time, Democrats have controlled America's legislative branch for all but 12 (1994-2006), and the Republicans really only held solid control until 2000. Perhaps coincidentally, those were the years in which we witnessed the evaporation of national debt, an accomplishment which is, for some reason, said to be the personal triumph of Bill Clinton.

Just for those who forget that the executive branch isn't the only one governing us. Almost all government spending has to make it through Congress.

[A Black Falcon]

One noteworthy thing: In the thirty years since Reagan was elected for the first time, Democrats have controlled America's legislative branch for all but 12 (1994-2006), and the Republicans really only held solid control until 2000. Perhaps coincidentally, those were the years in which we witnessed the evaporation of national debt, an accomplishment which is, for some reason, said to be the personal triumph of Bill Clinton.

Just for those who forget that the executive branch isn't the only one governing us. Almost all government spending has to make it through Congress.

I love how Republicans want to take responsibility for Clinton's accomplishments... :)

I mean, with how much they hated him you'd think they wouldn't want to, but obviously not.

Congress can sometimes do things over a President, but more often, at least from the mid 20th century on for sure, the President initiates things. For instance, the Democrats controlled the House all through Reagan's eight years, yet I don't think many people would ascribe Reagan's major legislative accomplishments to them... the same goes for Clinton. In both cases, the legislation that passed was a cooperative effort between the two parties, with the dominant party being the one with control of the White House. The other party had a say too, and got some of its way in the final bill, but the dominant party was whoever had the President.


Anyway, as you said, Republicans had congress until 2006... and what happened between 2001 and 2006, when the Republicans controlled all branches of government most of the time? Oh that's right, a surplus redirected into deficit-inflating tax cuts for the rich, unpaid-for wars, more unpaid-for tax cuts for the rich, more miniscule spending cuts on liberal social programs and building projects done to put a thin veneer of caring about the deficit over them, etc. Or are you going to say that Bush and the congressional Republicans who followed him every step of the way somehow did not agree on these things? I don't think that would work... no, Clinton was the one most responsible for the surplus.

And remember, he did it against the wishes of many Democrats too, he was cutting liberal programs as well as conservative, such as his big "cut welfare rolls" efforts... he worked with both parties to get something that would work and that would pass. But do I think for a second that Republicans would have done anything remotely similar, given their record when in power? Absolutely not!

Is that anything like people turning to the Democrats and pleading for economic recovery, and getting a trillion-dollar health-care-bill instead? But you're right. You can't trust Republicans with the economy. Why, if only we had a congress full of Dems, they'd get the job done! Oh, wait... we do... and what's that? Stagnation? Continued unemployment? Why--by golly, it's almost as though the Dem's are full of shit. But that can't be! Where was I.. oh, yea... DAMN REPUBLICANS HAVE NO PLAN HOW TO FIX ANYTHING!

Bottom line: It is HILARIOUS to bash the right about a theoretical ineptitude for solving the economy when your boys are in power, and have been for 2 years, and have gotten nothing done. Spending a trillion on economic stimulus sure did fuck up the deficit a bunch, and return no large-scale gains. YOU, as a self-proclaimed Socialist by-proxy, have NO right to LECTURE ANYONE on how to FIX THE ECONOMY.

The economic stimulus and financial reform bills that have passed have done an incredible amount of good for the economy. Obama said last year that the stimulus bill would create or save millions of jobs. He was absolutely right, and it has. TARP, the GM bailout, etc. did at least as much good or more, in keeping the businesses so crucial to our economy's health from going out of business.

The Bush administration decided to not save Lehman Bros. as the economy collapsed, and that was perhaps the worst mistake that has been made during this whole recession. The blow that that collapse did to the economy made things much, much worse than they otherwise would have been. At least it did teach our government that they could not let that happen again, so we did save AIG, GM, etc...

I know that saving failing companies looks really bad, but letting them fail, and rip apart the stock market and our economy, is infinitely worse.


Anyway... why is unemployment so high? Because the government under-estimated the depth of the recession, and the Republicans are block-everything idiots, and the result was that the financial rescue packages were not big enough, and it is now impossible to pass more because, well, the Republicans block everything and the Democrats are too weak and scared to put a stop to it, tragically. (They have 59 seats. They could.)

Republicans have been trying desperately to lie and say that the economic stimulus bill saved no jobs, we are no better off than we would be without those bills passing, etc., and some people are falling for it, but it's a total, complete lie. We are MUCH better off than we otherwise would be. If you think things are bad now, it'd be hard to imagine how much worse they'd be if we'd been following hard-line Republican policies for the last few years...

Things would be worse, much, much worse. Now if only the Democrats would grow spines, break the Republicans ridiculous, and unconstitutional, "we're threatening to maybe filibuster so you can't pass anything" idiocy, and actually get some more work done, we'd be in even better economic shape now and more stimulus money would be out there, because the money's needed. As you say, things are still bad, worse than those in government expected. The stimulus there was did what it could, but it wasn't enough to overcome the whole recession, and as some of it ran out this year and wasn't replaced with anything, things began to get worse again. That's natural; the only thing that isn't are the Republican lies about it all.

Unfortunately though, spine-growing of the sort needed seems to be something only done by Republicans. :(

First of all, this total equality of society you're toting sounds an awful lot like communism to me. While I hate rich people, I have to admit that there must be a social hierarchy. Rich assholes, and poor, dumb clots is the way the world always has been, and always will be. This dream of your's... this dream your share with Marx, and Lenin, and Stalin, and Castro, of a totally equal society is, firstly, impossible, and secondly, bad for society. You want to tax and punish the rich and hard-working to play Robin Hood with someone else's money? Communism doesn't work. "Give the poor and middle class a chance"... what kind of chance do you mean? By taxing the fuck out of the rich? What chance does this afford the poor? By giving them hand-outs? What is the end-goal here besides spitefully attacking the more fortunate? Say you get your way and tax the rich, and give it to the poor, and then we have a totally equal GDP, and everyone earns exactly 20,000 a year. Is that really the kind of crazy fucked-up world you want to live in? No reason to work hard, you'll never get ahead. No incentive to open a new factory, you can't profit from it. On the other hand, since Messiah ABF demands a totally egalitarian society, in which all are equal, if I do nothing, I still get my share.

You like talking economics? Let's talk about how grand and wonderful your Soviet economy was in 1989.

There aren't enough s in the world for the utter delusions of this insane piece of irrelevance... Communism? Trying to have fair economic policies which do not unfairly advantage the rich is communism? That's such a crazily stupid idea that I don't know what to say... other than that it's delusional, that is. The only thing you're right about there is that communism doesn't work, and probably can't. Marx didn't account for human nature, pretty much.

But Scandinavian-style socialism? That works. So does America's system, which has some socialist elements to it as well. They do not damage private enterprise's ability to do great things. Conservatives here still seem to have a problem with socialism, for some reason... but socialism and communism are very, very different. Soviet communism as you describe it there has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any Democratic economic policy, and any honest thinking person knows that. What the Democrats actually advocate is for having economic policies that don't persecute poor people for being poor and that don't reward rich people for being rich; instead, you tax the rich person more because they have more, and the poor person less because they have less. Of course people who work more or are better should and do get paid better, they just shouldn't be able to exploit their workers, the environment, and the political process simply because they have money. Poor people are people too, and have rights. The Democrats try to make it so that the people who can most afford to actually pay the bills, and the people who can least afford to don't have to. That's always difficult, the rich have the money and thus much more political power than the poor, and many Democrats listen to that money too, but that is, I think, at least the supposed goal.

Oh yeah, and raising taxes is sometimes necessary. You must pay for government somehow.

On a related note, I know, many conservatives have a theoretical hatred of government... it is funny, though, how quickly they forget that once in power.

I mean, many Republicans have been in office since Social Security and Medicare were adopted. When they were passed, the Republican party railed against them, called them communist, said they would repeal, etc, etc, all the things the Republican party did this year over health care reform... and yet once passed, the programs stayed, because people realized that they were good.

Explain yourself. Don't just make accusations, child. I thought we were talking politics, but if you want to fling mud about (of all things) economics, back yourself up. Where have I demonstrated such ignorance? Your argument seems to be, that if I don't agree with you, I know nothing about economics and am not worth talking to. Is that it?

Here are two examples.

I'm amazed that with all of the federal spending from 1982-1992, you were, miraculously, able to localize that the federal debt increased solely because of this legislation. The sheer number of manhours you must have spent going through tomes immemorial of numbers and figures... the numbercrunching you must have done to have been able to conclude, "of all gov. spending 1982-1992, it was tax cuts that increased the deficit, a deficit which otherwise would have (what, fallen? you tell me).

Read a few sentences sometimes about the crash of the early '90s that was caused by the Reagan tax-and-spend policy of tax cuts for the rich and massive military buildup. You might learn a few things.

I mean, did you think that Bush I lost to Bill Clinton for no reason? That's not at all true, in fact the economic recession of the early '90s caused by Reagan's cut-taxes-and-massively-increase-spending policies of the '80s was a big reason why. Bush II used similar policies but worse, to even more disastrous results.

Ostensibly that does seem to be the way the graph looked, but neither you nor I understand what was spent on what, and like it or not, 9/11 happened and threw the budget into chaos. Just because you don't like me using that as a reason doesn't make it invalid.

Yes, but they could have been responsible. Bush could have come out and said, we have a huge amount of new spending that we need. We need to postpone our tax cuts because of the vast sums we'll need to now fight fighting terrorism. Americans will have to sacrifice. But Bush did the exact opposite, and encouraged Americans to go out, spend, and run up their credit card bills, while the nation did the same thing and put the entire war bill on our credit line while we reduced revenues at home by cutting taxes. Blaming the whole thing on 9/11 is a bad excuse, and a false one.

And earmarks are wrong no matter who does them.

Earmarks are spending on local projects that directly help local American communities. The only thing even potentially "wrong" about them are how many are passed with little knowledge; I agree that earmarks should be more obvious and shouldn't be as easy to hide. Are earmarks in general good, though? Yes, absolutely. Earmarks help local communities, states, and America in general.

Miniscule social programs? Welfare (which I assume is what you're referring to) is slated in 2010 to cost 762.3 billion (with a B) dollars. That makes it the biggest over-all price-item after Defense, Education, Health Care and Pensions. You don't help your argument by minimizing something as big as 3/4ths of a trillion dollars. And earmarks are wrong no matter who does them. I feel more and more like I'm arguing with a sarcstic little teenager than anything else, because so many of your arguments are poised in a pseudo-Republican form, as if coming from then lips of an arch-Republican. Sarcasm doesn't help your argument.

I wasn't talking about that kind of social program there...

See what I said above about how Republicans do not, in fact, actually cut very much out of those social programs. They are too popular and help too many people, and even many Republicans come to accept and even like them.

No, what I meant there were things like how both Reagan and the Bushes liked to cut arts programs, public broadcasting, and things like that... cut little bits from the edges of liberal social funding, and call that "helping the deficit" while in fact their military and homeland security spending increases were so massive that the tiny (in dollar value, in comparison) cuts really didn't matter much. Classic misdirection, and for conservatives in this country at least, it works. (Note that for the programs cut, the cuts are often massive; it is only in comparison to America's mind-bogglingly huge military and homeland security spending numbers that they can look "small".)

I think that Ron Paul actually is consistent about this and actually does want us only to use what military power we can actually pay for, but that's perhaps because the Tea Party seems to come out of the isolationist wing of the Republican party, the part that doesn't really want us to be entangled abroad... that wing had minimal voice during the Cold War, but now they're back. At least he is talking about the idea that military cuts might be necessary, though; I agree, they are. You can't have a double standard and make military and homeland security inviolate, particularly considering how much we're spending on them.

As for the wars, I personally always strongly opposed Iraq, and reluctantly supported Afghanistan. That is still true.

[etoven]

Ha Ha.. John Stewart made a funny..
He edited the video, so she's talking about global warming..

[Darunia]

I no longer care enough about this argument to sit down and spend an hour every night rebuking Comrade Stalin's comments.

New topic:

Dogs or cats? Which do YOU prefer!?

[A Black Falcon]

I greatly dislike dogs, and love cats.

[EdenMaster]

I greatly dislike dogs, and love cats.

I'm a big dog fan, had them all my life. That said, my living situation makes having a dog difficult, so I own a cat.

Dog person, cat owner. How you like them apples

[A Black Falcon]

I've been scared of dogs since I was two, and still am to a degree... and while I love cats, and we always had cat(s) at home, I don't like them to be on my lap; I don't know, I just can't take it. I prefer them next to me, where I can pet them... which is a problem for a cat we currently have, who loves to lie in your lap and claw your stomach... and must spend like ten hours a day begging for food, and the rest of the time napping. Yeah, she's silly. :)

[Weltall]

I enjoy dogs like I enjoy children: it's so much better when they belong to somebody else. They are a lot of fun to have around, but a huge hassle to maintain and are very messy.

I like cats because they are quiet and self-sufficient, as long as I keep the food coming and clean the sandbox three times a week.

[alien space marine]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CGb08ZYv_pk&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CGb08ZYv_pk&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pm_Wvno_lO4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pm_Wvno_lO4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

My Brother owned a old Brindle colored american Akita that passed away in 2007 at the golden age of 15, She was very timid and shy around people but very territorial with other female dogs.

I prefer dogs, Although they do require allot more work then Cats. Dogs just make better companions to bond with and unlike cats a fair sized dog is good home security, My Norwegian Elkhound really hated insurance salesmen :D

[Darunia]

I like cats and dogs equally. However, thanks to my mother, with whom I still live, we have only cats. Four of them. One of them is squarely mine, and she's a fantastic lap cat... and more, a shoulder cat... she has a thing for always draping herself over my left shoulder (and ONLY the LEFT shoulder), as though she were a baby being burped.

When I get my own place, and one day am in the market for a new pet, I would like a dog.

[Dark Jaguar]

I take back everything because it's now become apparent that whoever did the report was quote mining. Literally the very next sentence out of her mouth was making it clear the entire speech was about overcoming personal bias.

I prefer cats. Dogs don't scare me because, well, I've seen the "security" they provide. Most people seem to make the stupid move of running or cowering when a dog runs at them. If you just kick them as they're running at you, threat over. Aim for the snout. They're just dogs, sheesh.

Anyway, that aside, I've always found dogs pretty annoying. I'd list the traits I found annoying but dog lovers in general list those same traits as the ones they love, so it's just a matter of personality I suppose. I prefer a pet that has a little dignity and isn't so cloying I suppose.