The Politics Thread - please direct all related posts here..

[richardhutnik]

when we all know the republican party is a bunch of racist white men and women. But mostly men

I can't begin to tell you how offensive I find this. It really angers me to hear anyone write this crap. I've been around just as long (or longer) than you and I can guarantee you that there is just as much racism among democrats, Black Americans included. That kind of talk helps nobody. As I'm sure you know, the difference between the party's ideology has nothing to do with race.

The Republican party, of the two parties, is the one where you are far more likely to find white racist men than the Democratic party. In the past, when the Democratic party tended to be more populist, and supported states rights, white racists were there. However, since the shift, white male racists will go Republican overwhelmingly. One can say black racists gravitate towards the Democratic party, so both parties do have elements of racism to it. However, the reality is that the Republican party is less diverse, by a WIDE margin, than the Democratic party, and doesn't want to see diversity be relevant in it, or American life. It doesn't want immigrants (well, maybe some rich immigrants), and certainly doesn't want Muslim fundamentalists, particularly those who have more than one wife.

The problem with racism and other supremistisms is more prevalent in the Republican party, because it doesn't like multiculturalism. People who are multicultural are far less likely to be racists or xenophobic. Want to know why the Republican party consistently gets less than 10% of the black vote? It is because of the isn't diverse in its values.

- Rich

[alphad0gz]

You can't support those statements at all. I've spent a lot of time in the South and a good portion of the people I met were Southern Democrats. They were also supporters of the Klan in some cases and incredibly racist in others. Trying to politicize racism is a very dangerous game at best, and a tool to control popular opinion. I was a registered republican and I am staunchly anti-immigration, however, I am an equal opportunity anti-immigration guy. I want it ALL stopped. My reasons have absolutely nothing to do with race or ethnicity and are centered on strictly financial reasons. I will also freely admit to not being a huge fan of multiculturalism. It is my belief that any country needs to have a primary culture or there will be unrest and war as each tries to establish supremacy. That is human nature and there is plenty of historical evidence to bear it out but none to support successful, peaceful multi-cultural existence. For an indicator of how damaging illegal immigration has been, I suggest immigrationcounters.com. Not everything that goes against your opinion is false. Senator Walsh is on record as saying the "real" number of illegals could approach 40m, despite Homeland Security's much more conservative estimates of 10-15m.

As far as Blacks supporting the democratic party, why do you think that is? Let me help you out. Affirmative action and entitlement programs. Until John Kennedy was supported by MLK Jr., Blacks were not predominately democrat voters. After the civil rights movement and the following welfare and affirmative action programs, the die was cast. This not an indictment of the Black race because it is well established that when any group of people have something given to them, they will not easily relinquish it.

I understand that most of you live in big cities. I don't and I think most of you have no idea what you are talking about when you talk in your generalities. I am in business now and I travel a lot. I talk to all types fro stock chasers, to Engineers, to CEOs. I don't see ANY of the generalizations that you make. Republicans and Democrats come in all shapes and colors. I want you to show me something that supports what you say.

[richardhutnik]

alpha, when did you go down to the south and see this? I would say the completion of the switch likely happened this past decade. Maybe you still have a few people left over who are Democrats, and in the Klan, but that isn't the norm. There is Red States and Blue States for a reason, although you will run into some exceptions.

Anyhow, because whites are a large majority in the United States, you will find a large number of them in both parties. However, when it comes to minorities, it is important to know where they go. On the whole, they tend to go Democratic, because they see the Republican party being one of white males. And it generally is.

As for information to backup what I say, consider this gallup poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118937/repub ... gious.aspx

Republican Base Heavily White, Conservative, Religious
Democrats are more likely to be moderate or liberal, Hispanic, or black or other races

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican ... _States%29

Race. While historically the party that had supported abolition of slavery, since 1964, the GOP has been weakly represented among African Americans, winning under 15% of the black vote in recent national elections (1980 to 2004). The party has recently nominated African American candidates for senator or governor in Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, though none were successful. The Republican Party supported the abolition of slavery under Abraham Lincoln, and from the Civil War until the Great Depression of the 1930s, blacks voted for Republican candidates by an overwhelming margin; in the Southern states, they were often not allowed to vote, but received Federal patronage appointments from the Republicans. The majority of black Americans switched to the Democratic Party in the 1930s when the New Deal offered them governmental support for civil rights. In the South, blacks were able to vote in large numbers after 1965, when a bipartisan coalition passed the Voting Rights Act, and ever since have formed a significant portion (20-50%) of the Democratic vote in that region.[56]

What I write on is back on how voting has demonstrated itself in voting patterns.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

Obama had "a sit down" with republicans at their convention in Baltimore today. Republicans now admit that it was a mistake to allow the cameras in for the question and answer session, because Obama refuted each and every one of their talking points.

See the video:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/29/ ... op/?hpt=T2

full Q and A video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 7#35147797

And the response:

video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9V2chi ... r_embedded

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/29/russert-gop-obama/

Republicans dismayed by Obama’s strong performance, say it was a ‘mistake’ to let cameras roll.

House Republicans were fired up and ready to go for their conversation with President Obama at their annual retreat today. According to the New York Times, members of the conservative Republican House Conference said they were “itching to quiz the president and present their policy ideas rather than listen to another lofty presidential address.” Although such sessions generally occur behind closed doors, Republicans agreed to open it up after the White House said it was willing to do so. However, after Obama’s strong performance, some Republicans are now regretting that decision. As Luke Russert reported on MSNBC:

RUSSERT: Tom Cole — former head of the NRCC, congressman from Oklahoma — said, “He scored many points. He did really well.” Barack Obama, for an hour and a half, was able to refute every single Republican talking point used against him on the major issues of the day. In essence, it was almost like a debate where he was front and center for the majority of it. … One Republican said to me, off the record, behind closed doors: “It was a mistake that we allowed the cameras to roll like that. We should not have done that.”

“Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months,” writes the Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder. “Debating a law professor is kind of foolish — the Republican House Caucus has managed to turn Obama’s weakness — his penchant for nuance — into a strength. Plenty of Republicans asked good and probing questions, but Mike Pence, among others, found their arguments simply demolished by the president.”

[HarthorneWingo]

Why did not a single Republican vote for "Pay as you go" to try to fight the budget deficit?

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/28/24166.htm

WASHINGTON (CN) - The Senate voted 60-40 on Thursday to require that new legislation be paid for; no Republicans voted for the bill. "Strict pay-as-you-go budget rules created record surpluses in the late 1990s," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said. "And when this standard was abandoned under President Bush, it created record deficits."


Exactly what DO the Republicans stand for outside of getting back into the White House?

- Rich

Very true. But please, and with all due respect, allow me to go you one further. People want to talk about all of this Obama socialism bullshyt and all the damage he's doing to the deficit. Whatever Obama has done - most out of necessity - is a mere sliver of the debt bestowed upon us by republican rule over the prior 8 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/busin ... .html?_r=1

America’s Sea of Red Ink Was Years in the Making

By DAVID LEONHARDT
Published: June 9, 2009

There are two basic truths about the enormous deficits that the federal government will run in the coming years.

The first is that President Obama’s agenda, ambitious as it may be, is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits, despite what many of his Republican critics are saying. The second is that Mr. Obama does not have a realistic plan for eliminating the deficit, despite what his advisers have suggested.

The New York Times analyzed Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade, with the aim of understanding how the federal government came to be far deeper in debt than it has been since the years just after World War II. This debt will constrain the country’s choices for years and could end up doing serious economic damage if foreign lenders become unwilling to finance it.

Post edited. Please limit excerpts of copyrighted materials to three paragraphs or less.

[HarthorneWingo]

Why did not a single Republican vote for "Pay as you go" to try to fight the budget deficit?

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/01/28/24166.htm

WASHINGTON (CN) - The Senate voted 60-40 on Thursday to require that new legislation be paid for; no Republicans voted for the bill. "Strict pay-as-you-go budget rules created record surpluses in the late 1990s," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said. "And when this standard was abandoned under President Bush, it created record deficits."


Exactly what DO the Republicans stand for outside of getting back into the White House?

- Rich

That's because they ARE the party of "no." They also added about 200 amendments to the health care bill and didn't vote for it. Not one vote.

[alphad0gz]

Let me say that I am neither Republican nor Democrat. They are the same people with a different jacket. I'm also all for having a population that is educated and safe. I am against having the government hand these benefits over without requiring sacrifice to get them. I also understand the healthcare issues, and probably better than most of you because I am involved from nearly every angle, from employer, to employee, to unemployed, and from the side of the medical industry. Everybody is worked up to near frenzy levels as we figure out what we can get, who will get it, and who will pay for it. Nobody is asking the most obvious questions. Why is it is so expensive and what is so different now from thirty years ago? That's the way you attack a problem. You make sure the expense is as small as it can be before you throw money at it. It's about the money. It's always about the money. Red money and Blue money. Only a fool would think otherwise.

We now have one of the most corrupt political systems in the world and it is no longer run for the people or by the people. It is run by the lobbyists and the businesses they rep. Control is the word of the day. If you think it's different, ask yourselves this: What would be your plan to control the population of a large country? First step would be disarmament (it's happening). Second step would be a slow, steady conversion of the population to dependence on the government for their existence (entitlements, anyone?). As long as people think they are participating in a democratic process, they will retain hope for change, and will be manageable.

Only lip service is given to topics that really can change things. Those things include illegal immigration and the loss of jobs due to "globalization". Election reform is the first step and we are never going to see it. This country is going broke at breakneck speed and everyone ignores the most obvious. What is the financial impact of having more than thirty million illegals here? In a country with an open ended immigration policy, it's absolutely devastating. Whispers of racism usually suffice to keep talk of immigration reform to a minimum. We have more than twenty million unemployed and thirty million illegals. Doesn't that even raise a red flag? We've also lost more than 20 million manufacturing jobs to overseas since 1995. Why is there no plan to encourage big business to move their manufacturing back? People need to leave the comfort of their own small little worlds and sample some of the rest of whats out there. Talk...observe...analyze. Look at things from a perspective other than just your own. We are eating scraps and so many of you are arguing about what plate to serve it on.

For the record, Rich, I travel to the South all the time. I never said the Klan was prevalent. In the 1960 election, 70% of the Black voters went democrat. The was the first really big swing and it was because a big part of the agenda was civil right. Kind of a no-duh moment. Johnson's term was marked by the beginning of the welfare system, which for obvious reasons benefited a large portion of the black population. I guess I should clarify that since I don't want to be branded a racist. In 1947, 87% of the Black population lived at or below the poverty level. It had shrank to 47% by 1960. Still, when one political party endorses a system that will absolutely benefit a group (any group) financially, that group is more than likely to overwhelmingly vote for that system. The sad part of that is the very system implemented to raise those people (below poverty families) essentially enslaved them to the government. It may not have been the intent, but it is, de facto, what happened. The crime is that it took so long to change that an entirely new culture was born.

On a final note for today....not everyone part of the religious right is in the light you portray. You really do need to get out more.

[richardhutnik]

alpha, the religious right I speak of (and it was overstated in the video I showed) happens to be part of the Dominionist version of Christianity that I have serious Biblical issues with. There are parts of which show no mercy or compassion for the poor, and do little to embody who Jesus is. However, there are problems beyond this when people end up elevating America above the Kingdom of God, or Capitalism above Christianity. I also have issues with individuals who believe free markets are some sort of savior, when they don't address issues of nations that have character issues, or don't have the same priorities Jesus does. I can also take issue with how Christianity in America ended up being something that mainly ministered to the guilt of the middle class and affluent.

In regards to where I stand, I did work on the Ron Paul campaign, but also now am on Unemployment, and living in temporary housing, because I couldn't stay with my parents. And throw in that the only help I get is from the state at this point. I would argue that the church needs to be in the center of society and manifesting change, and stop leaving it up to the government in either laws or welfare. When you see people who are hardcore conservative here, and they start debating Christianity on here, it ends up that there is a changing of subjects, because one has a hard time arguing what goes on in Washington by the political parties even remotely resembles what the Christian faith is.

In regards to the rest, I seriously suggest people actually do something about the problems of society and make a difference, and depower Washington by doing things locally. Merely cutting funds to Washington and killing spending isn't going to make the problems of society go away. If people aren't addressing them now, what makes you think they will in the future? You are far more likely to get a "Be warm and be fed" message from people, along with "Jesus loves you" than you are actual help. And I am fully aware of how useless government is. But at least they are decent at getting me cash. And you cut that off? All you will do is either force me to go back to my parents and live with a father who verbally abuses my mother (and issues verbal death threats) or force me to be homeless. Let me know how either of these two choices are an option. Of course, maybe someone can get me a job. But, you know what, I don't see IBM doing anything like that any time soon. And yes, please tell me my getting a Masters degree in Information Systems was my fault. I will own up to it, and say anyone getting an advanced degree there is making a mistake. Since I am also looking at about 3 years without a job, maybe there is some sort of booth where my life can be terminated so I stop consuming resources. Want to implement that? Get rid of all the chronically unemployed an illegal aliens. Make society safe for the middle and upper class who are apparently productive citizens.

As far as moving jobs back, you want to have a MAXIMUM wage for American workers? You know, if you are unemployed you MUST work a manufacturing job and can't be paid more than $5 a day. How else does one encourage entities that want to drive labor costs down to nothing?

- Rich

[alphad0gz]

I will respond, but I need some time. let's keep this going and come up with some ideas to toss around.

[richardhutnik]

I will respond, but I need some time. let's keep this going and come up with some ideas to toss around.

This thread I believe is stickied, so I don't think it is going anywhere. I believe it is fine to have it lay dormant awhile, if need be.

In regards to myself, I am all over the map on things, due to my station in life. I am on unemployment, and I also work as an entrepreneur. I can be said to have Christian values, but have issues with some values people consider "Christian" also. So, it is hard with me to end up putting me in a simple camp somewhere. I am also now officially registered as an Independent.

- Rich

[HarthorneWingo]

Scare tactics on the deficit:

Op-Ed Columnist
Fiscal Scare Tactics

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 4, 2010

These days it’s hard to pick up a newspaper or turn on a news program without encountering stern warnings about the federal budget deficit. The deficit threatens economic recovery, we’re told; it puts American economic stability at risk; it will undermine our influence in the world. These claims generally aren’t stated as opinions, as views held by some analysts but disputed by others. Instead, they’re reported as if they were facts, plain and simple.

Yet they aren’t facts. Many economists take a much calmer view of budget deficits than anything you’ll see on TV. Nor do investors seem unduly concerned: U.S. government bonds continue to find ready buyers, even at historically low interest rates. The long-run budget outlook is problematic, but short-term deficits aren’t — and even the long-term outlook is much less frightening than the public is being led to believe.

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

* * *

-more-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/05/opini ... mesKrugman

[duetta]

February 7, 2010
Editorial
The Truth About the Deficit

When the White House released its new budget last week, including more spending to create desperately needed jobs, Republican leaders in Congress denounced President Obama for driving up the deficit and demanded that the Democrats halt their “reckless” ways.

The deficit numbers — a projected $1.3 trillion in fiscal 2011 alone — are breathtaking. What is even more breathtaking is the Republicans’ cynical refusal to acknowledge that the country would never have gotten into so deep a hole if President George W. Bush and the Republican-led Congress had not spent years slashing taxes — mainly on the wealthy — and spending with far too little restraint. Unfortunately, the problem does not stop there.

The Republican amnesia and posturing are playing well on the hustings, where Americans are deeply anxious about the economy and fearful of losing their jobs and homes. Far too many Democratic lawmakers are losing their nerve.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/opini ... n1.html?hp

[orangeblobman]

More government spending (and thus taxes) to create jobs? Insanity.

Here's a thought: protect our industries and let them create the jobs instead of selling them up the river to Shanghai and then taxing us to create bureaucracy-expanding jobs.

[duetta]

You can't grow any non-military industrial complex business without an increase in consumer demand. That's reality.

Here's another bit of reality: the economic elite in this society could care less about Americans or American jobs. Taxes are lower today than at any time in the last seventy years - and yet the American economy is in its worst shape since the Great Depression, and jobs continue to be outsourced.

We need to teach critical thinking again in the schools, and radically expand adult education efforts. Blind adherence to ideology has transformed America into a nation of functional idiots.

[alphad0gz]

You can't grow any non-military industrial complex business without an increase in consumer demand. That's reality.

Here's another bit of reality: the economic elite in this society could care less about Americans or American jobs. Taxes are lower today than at any time in the last seventy years - and yet the American economy is in its worst shape since the Great Depression, and jobs continue to be outsourced.

Functionally, taxes have never been higher. Seriously. Tell me how you got your numbers and I'll tell you how I got mine.

Can't grow industry? Who has your ear? My suggestion to you is to make a list of nonperishable items and go shopping for them. Here's the catch: They must be made in the USA. Shop anywhere you wish with the lone exception that it not be a store that only sells USA products (as if). Now, it's fairly easy to assume that the store is selling these items or they wouldn't be in business. Therefore, we can assume the market has already been created. There is no need to "grow" the business. There is only a need to bring back to the USA what was once already being made here.

This is the important part: My suggestion to you is to make a list of nonperishable items and go shopping for them. Here's the catch: They must be made in the USA. Shop anywhere you wish with the lone exception that it not be a store that only sells USA products (as if).

Honestly, why do people make this more complex than it is. No offense, but you sound like a guy that believes what you read without fact checking or qualifying numbers.

[alphad0gz]

You say that taxes have not been lower in seventy years. I'll say that the tax burden has never, ever been higher.

[duetta]

Functionally, taxes have never been higher. Seriously. Tell me how you got your numbers and I'll tell you how I got mine.

Marginal Federal Rates, including capital gains. They are objectively at the lowest levels since the Great Depression. Under Eisenhower the top Federal Rate marginal rate was 92%. When Republicans mindlessly quote John Kennedy's appeal for lower taxes in 1960, they don't tell you that he was talking about cutting taxes from a top rate of 91%. The top rate today is, what, 35%, minus all the loopholes that the wealthy already have for avoiding taxation outright (as opposed to the average Joe). Meanwhile, we also have the most humane society in American history. That humanity, that thin veneer of civilization, comes at a price.

Now, if your argument is that we should bring back industries that were once American, and are no longer American...and begin producing goods here...I'm all with you, but good luck on that one. The problem is that a people bred on the gospel of selfishness tend not to think about anything other than private interest - and defend it as if it were somehow their God-given right. But, nationhood is an inherently collective experience. Sensible rates of taxation is the price of an advanced industrial civilization - especially one in which there has long been an imbalance between the size of the labor force and the number of jobs that actually pay a living wage. So long as there are workers who can be exploited, and people who believe that it is their God-given right to exploit them, that imbalance will continue, no matter the rate of taxation they are asked to pay in their local markets.

[orangeblobman]

Reading the Manifesto much?

"exploited workers", "selfishness"

Private interest isn't a God-given right?

Sensible taxation? Is that what you think this is?

[duetta]

Reading the Manifesto much?

"exploited workers", "selfishness"

Private interest isn't a God-given right?

Sensible taxation? Is that what you think this is?

For the record, I've actually never read it - and I'm not a Marxist, just a realist who has studied enough history to understand that the first social welfare programs were instituted by uber-conservatives like Bismark - or that income tax was instituted by a conservative named Teddy Roosevelt - both worried about the sweep of Marxist economic ideas at moments when the capitalist system seemed to be especially vulnerable.

And yes, our level of taxation is approaching sensible, but probably a bit too low, and not nearly progressive enough. The Clinton level is probably right - and we had both tons of venture capital expenditures during the Clinton era and more wealth accumulation than is just about any period in the modern age. Civilization comes at a cost. I like civilization. I make no apologies for that. I suggest that people who prefer to live in a yahoo-republic join Rick Perry in Texas or Palin in Alaska.

[duetta]

You're using emotionally charged words and language, this is a sign that you don't really have a clear argument.

Truthfully, it's a sign of my growing contempt for the other side. That's the honest truth. It's not something that I'm proud of, and it's why I've chosen to mostly withdraw from this thread. But you can't imagine the scale of my contempt for alleged ‘conservatives’ in this country at this point in time. You have no idea.

I'm dubious about your first statements, Bismark or Roosevelt. The 'conservative' label means different things in different historical contexts. A conservative of Roosevelt's days does not imply that he would be a conservative today. A student of history like yourself should know this.

True. Conservative today means living in a fantasy world that imploded, but refusing to admit that it imploded, with all your theories being ripped to shreds. Conservative today means supporting both low taxation and mindless militarism - or believing that you can oppose terror by employing terror, or create peace by waging war across the planet, and making new enemies each and every day.

I don't know how you can call a society where highway robbery in the form of exorbitant taxation is encouraged, civilized. Taking hard earned money from workers to fund bigger government, and so, political ideologies, is the opposite of civilization. It is a descent into barbarism. It's a world where wanting to keep what's yours is greedy. That's insane. It's all insanity.

Bigger government. You mean the Iraq War? You mean like the military industrial complex that IKE warned against, or the CIA budget that is not even public?

But here's the key for me. I believe primarily in the quintessentially American principle of checks and balances, not that of liberty. I believe that Government can be a check and balance against the easily documented evil of people, and especially the evil of alleged God-fearing people who have historically gone out of their way to violate the spirit of Jesus' teaching at just about every possible turn - while justifying how it was all God's will that they did so. I believe that people throughout American history have demonstrated themselves largely incapable of acknowledging their own evil and culpability in real time - only in hindsight. I believe that if Government stinks it is because the people who elect the government, and constitute the government, and seek to corrupt the government, stink. And hence the problem is not government at all, but people. Change people, and you change government, and you change the world. IMHO, the place to begin when changing people is to insist that they confront reality. And, on that note, I will again take my leave from this thread, less my blood pressure continue its unhealthy rise…