That and Republicans are racists :stick out tongue:
Is that why teh senate building is named after him?
But didn’t most of those racist Democrats become Republicans? What does the Southern strategy mean to you?
Except that Republicans pander to racists.
Did you miss the pandering to racists?
It means political soundbites used by the Democratic leadership as a way of maintaining a voting block.
Given that numerous Republicans have noted and expounded on the Southern Strategy over the years, the best that can be said for the book reviewed in the article is that there was a separate economic movement that had the effect of reinforcing the Republican efforts. Given that the term was coined by Republicans and employed by Republicans and commented upon by Republicans, any effort to recast it as a “political soundbite” of the Democrats is merely revisionist spin.
If some policy is good for people across the spectrum, not matter what race, that’s not good enough? Guess what, ElvisL1ves, it is quite possible for a policy to help blacks, even if it doesn’t discriminate based on race. Your whole post is an example of condescension towards blacks by liberals. Do you think that blacks require special treatment by the law because otherwise nothing can help them? If a law doesn’t have giveaways based on ethnicity, then it doesn’t count?
Precisely which of the “policies” mentioned by Susanann were beneficial to “people across the spectrum”? Lower taxes, which I recall accruing mostly to the top strata of society, excluding most blacks? A fence to keep Mexicans out, which actually negatively impacts all minorities? Airline deregulation, which caused more problems than it solved for everyone, including blacks? Concealed weapons laws that didn’t make it easier one iota for the average black person to legally own a gun? And what the Heck did Sarah Palin have to do with the already existing rebate in Alaska, other than simply allowing it to continue, big accomplishment there, and which also benefits blacks to an extremely negligable level since there are very few blacks in Alaska anyway?
Of course. But it is not possible to claim it honestly as a pro-black policy.
You better start providing some facts and data instead of trying to “recall” if you want to be taken seriously. For example, doubling of the child credit or creating a new 10% bottom bracket by Bush certainly hugely affected low income payers. Thanks mainly to Bush’s cuts, there are now a record number of non-payers of federal taxes (more than a third of all tax returns in 2008 and likely to grow in 2009 and 2010, according to the Tax Foundation).
Not that I necessarily agree with Susanann, but once again you need to show some support for your claims. Your opinion is just that and your attempt to start talking about “minorities” instead of “blacks” because it fits your agenda better, even if that’s not the topic, is transparent.
Once again, no justification whatsoever for your opinion. We know for example that the average airfare fell by 30% in inflation-adjusted terms from 1976 to 1990 (Airline deregulation - Wikipedia) and that would affect low-income passengers (blacks on average have lower incomes) more. But this deregulation was proposed by a Democrat and signed by Carter…
From no facts to twisting what Susanann said:
Notice the difference?
I am not Susanann, so I don’t know, but your argument is a failure once again. Just because there are few blacks in Alaska doesn’t mean that you can ignore them and say that Susanann’s point is invalid. If it helped even just a few of them (I’m not claiming that it did), that’s good enough.
It absolutely is. If a policy is just “pro-people” and its effects include blacks, then it is obviously “pro-black” as well, since blacks are people.
So your sayin g the Southern strategy was just a myth, a distortion of something relatively benign into something ugly, divisive and racist? Do we really need to start a great debates thread to discuss whether the Southern strategy was a myth?
This is true, when Republicans cut taxes, they shift the burden away from the top 0.1% and the bottom 20-40% of Americans and shift them to the middle/upper middle class. The way they figure it, the bottom 20-40% didn’t contribute much to begin with and the top 0.1% need their money for campaign contributions.
I think he was talking about the negative effects of airline deregulation (which as far as I can see fell mostly on airline employees and shareholders). But if it was proposed by a Democrat and signed by Carter, then how did it end up on the list of things the Republicans did for blacks?
If it doesn’t actually increase access to firearms for blacks, then how the heck is that helping them?
I think his point is Sarah palin didn’t do sh!t, she just happened to be governor of a state that already had a mechanism in place for distributing oil profits to its citizens. I guess Palin could have stopped some oil production in Alaska… hardly seems worth mentioning.
“‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ improves military readiness and morale. With DADT, our military is better able to carry out its varying missions and protect America. The military protects gay Americans, too. Therefore, DADT is a pro-gay policy.”
I am not suprised on this messageboard that people fail to grasp even what “pro black” means. This is about as genuine a statement as Japanese-internment reparations were “pro-people”, since Japanese Americans are people. :rolleyes:
No we don’t, at least not since 2005 when RNC chairman Ken Mehlman apologized for it.
Upon research, I see that indeed the poor did receive a tax cut under Bush, albeit extremely modest. A tax cut, even if only $42 a year, is a tax cut after all. Also, those who paid no taxes because their incomes fell below the taxable threshold can thank the EITC, enacted not under Bush, but Gerald Ford who, although a Republican, and not a particularly strong president, was, IMO, a pretty decent guy. Anyway, Susanann’s implication was that the tax cut was targeted to blacks, which it clearly wasn’t.
My agenda was to state that a proposal to build a wall to keep out illegal aliens, which is xenophobic and racist, presents a detriment not solely accruable to hispanics but to blacks as well. Ask me how.
Damuri Ajashi’s response was what I was getting at. Airline deregulation negatively impacted the incomes of low-level airline and airport employees, including baggage handlers and ground crew, many of whom were black. I’m probably one of the three people on the planet who liked President Carter, but even I thought deregulation of the airlines was a bad move.
You’re parsing too tightly to make a point that doesn’t address the issue, which is that the law didn’t result in more guns legally owned by blacks. And again, Susanann’s implication was that this was a law designed to benefit blacks when that could not possibly be further from the truth.
Susanann’s point is invalid because she credits Sarah Palin who had nothing to do with instituting the fund, nor was its disbursement designed to benefit blacks.
Well, to be fair, the poor weren’t paying very much to begin with. The thing about taxation is not how much we tax, that is determined over the long run by how much we spend. The question is how will that tax burden be spread. And while the wealthy carry the lion’s share of the federal income tax burden both before and after Bush, they have shifted more of their burden to future generations than any other group.
Then why does someone come along and try to wave away the Southern Strategy every time it some up? The same sort of phenomenon occurs with slavery and the civil war; tax cuts that increase tax revenues; education vouchers; and recently social security as a Ponzi scheme (there are some things that conservatives also have to constantly prove over and over again as well). WHy do we have to keep reproving these things (often to the same people) over and over again?
The Bush tax cuts did directly lower taxes on the middle class. An argument could be made that they were lowered more for upper class or that they increased the deficit because there were no accompanying spending cuts, thus indirectly increasing future taxes.
The impact of lower airfares on the ability to travel by airplane by lower-income public (which includes a lot of blacks) is undoubtedly very significant. There would have to be a huge impact on the much lower number of airline employees and shareholders for your statement to be true. I doubt very much that it is. For example, you can’t neglect shareholders of companies created thanks to the additional opportunities due to the deregulation. There are definitely more airline employees now than before deregulation (see BTS data) and the closest BLS survey I can find shows that the wages in this industry increased from 1980 to 1995.
As to why it was mentioned, I don’t know, it wasn’t my list.
I don’t know why you and Onomatopoeia both have such huge problems understanding a simple sentence by Susanann. It was about carrying concealed weapons, not about increasing access to all firearms or any such thing. You’re creating a straw man.
Onomatopoeia’s argument specifically mentioned “there are very few blacks in Alaska” and that’s what I was responding to.
Laughable attempt. Obviously both positive and negative effects of a policy have to considered. If the effects of DADT were only those you stated, then it’d be a true statement. My simplified statement was about policies that are positive for everybody (“pro-people” and I even mentioned “its effects include blacks” to apparently in vain prevent jokers like you from trying to twist it around).
Yet another poster for whom apparently it’s a revelation that a policy can have positive effects on a racial group without specifically targeting it and it might even be positive for other races too! There can be no way for a policy to be positive for blacks, unless it only benefits them, right julius blaze? One might call such a policy “racist,” but for julius blaze it’s the way the government should be run. Otherwise, how could blacks ever vote for Republicans, since they didn’t get any blacks-specific giveaways lately?