Change the Party to What?

The seemingly endless talk since Tuesday from liberals and pseudo-conservatives alike is getting deafening regarding how the GOP needs to “change” in order to win in the future. The Democrats, in their infinite wisdom and genuine charity in helping the GOP achieve victory, believe Republicans need to “moderate” and become “inclusive.” Of course, the implication is that the party which nominated John McCain and Mitt Romney in succession isn’t “moderate” or “inclusive.”

When Democrats say Republicans need to “moderate,” that is code for the Republicans need to agree with Democrats. That is not a path to conservative victory nor is that a path which will yield a prosperous America for years to come.

Republicans, with their uncanny ability to fold, are also espousing some of this rubbish regarding how the party isn’t pandering to Latinos, women and other minorities as much as the Democrats are. The line of thinking, if I can try to understand it, says we in the GOP need to somehow out-Santa Claus the Democrats and out-pander them in compromising our values to play politics like liberals do. We need to slice and dice the population into segments and then target each segment accordingly. Principles be damned, we apparently can only win the way the Democrats do as they shamelessly pit Americans against each other.

There is a road map for victory. It happened in 1980 and 1984 when we witnessed landslides in the conservative direction. Republicans refuse to credit Ronald Reagan with giving us the road map and refuse to believe it can happen again.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m inclined to join Landreaux in his “relatively media free cave.”

  • Landreaux

    Democratic light is not the answer. Caving on principal is not the answer. But, facing realities from a Conservative point of view has to be a big part of the answer. We can’t deport 13 million illegals, so what is a conservative answer to that reality. We do need to face reality and a significant portion of the electorate sees us not facing realities.

    McCain not engaging the Rev. Wright issue and Romney not engaging the Benghazi issue is also not the answer. Not engaging the MSM and not attempting to hold them to account with ‘facts’ is also not the answer.

    We need a fresh look at policy that can be communicated well. Look at Rubio and Bob McDonald they communicate a conservative message that isn’t scary.

  • Landreaux

    Oh, and……..You Decide has a special pass to the cave.

  • Bones

    Actually I see things as just the opposite. I think the notion that Republicans need to move to the left is exactly the problem with the party as it exists. Conservatives aren’t conservative anymore, or at least not their presidential candidates. Romney, McCain? And before McCain, Giuliani seemed almost assured to get the nomination.

    Giuliani was endorsed by the NRA, though I don’t know how. Did they not consider New York’s record on gun control? My understanding is that McCain nearly ran on Kerry’s Democratic ticket – though he did ultimately turn it down. Before his nomination, I knew more liberals who liked McCain than I did conservatives. Most conservatives I knew called him a RINO. And most recently, Romney, the father of Obamacare, governor of Massachusetts. He does not have a particularly conservative record.

    George W. Bush wasn’t exactly conservative either. 2 unfunded foreign wars, nation-building (which he vowed not to do when he was a candidate), bailouts. He wasn’t small government, he was big government – he just had a different notion of the ways in which our government should be big than Democrats. He was not in favor of civil liberties, he just had a different notion of how civil liberties should be curtailed than most Democrats. And I know some would not blame him that the deficit skyrocketed on his watch, but it did nonetheless.

    Personally, I have strong conservative leanings. I hold many conservative principals, mostly fiscal. But the party has wholly alienated me, to the point that I voted straight Libertarian. I truly hope it moves away from the ‘whatever it takes to be elected’ mentality, and returns to it’s roots. Whether or not it means they can win an election, the Republican party used to have strong principals, and I would love to see the party have those again.

  • “We can’t deport 13 million illegals, so what is a conservative answer to that reality.”

    We respect the immigration laws of Mexico, Thailand any every other nation. Some countries, Mexico specifically, have measurably tougher laws than we do yet we’re expected to roll over.

    What is the conservative answer on this when the pushback is to call you a “racist” if you don’t support open borders? It is arguable that Ronald Reagan’s amnesty is what lead to 12+ more million illegal aliens entering the country. Is that a viable answer now?

    This is worthy of discussion. I think the leadership will come from conservatives like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Those who can solve issues without compromising principles.

  • Bob

    Bones:

    Although I find it hard to believe this is our “Bones” who is admitting “strong conservative leanings” you were pretty much spot on in your analysis of the recent Republican candidates especially “W”.I will however await to see if you remove your tongue which is placed firmly in your cheek.

  • Bones

    Bob,

    I consider myself independent. I’m deeply unhappy with the state of both parties, and the two-party system itself. But as this is a decidedly conservative site, when I find myself disagreeing with something, it’s usually Conservative in nature, and as a result I only ever end up defending the liberal side. My more liberal friends (and indeed my family) think I’m a Conservative for the same reason.

  • D.D.Mao

    The political center today is economiclly left center and to many American voters the Conservative ideas of self-reliance and individual freedom is unacceptable.

    Many of the groups that voted Democratic (women,Hispanic,Afro-Americans)are disproportionately disadvantaged economically.Even as Mr.Romney won the votes of those who make over $50,000. by 9 points President Obama won those who make less than $50,000. by a whopping 22 points.Yes they might even agree with Conservative social issues yet will consistently pull the lever for statist candidates.In other words for the single mom “Julia” is an appealing safety net because at least someone is taking care of her family.

    It isn’t the immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party but the core Democratic principle of a more generous government safety net.U.S. born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native born non-Hispanic households.And that is because nearly one quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California and the out of wed-lock birth rate is 53% ,about twice that of whites.

    We don’t need to reform the Republican party with “NEW IDEAS” because the ideas the President won with is the same recycled ideas that Progressives were throwing out 100 years ago.The face of America is changing and right now the face relies on rhetoric and perception. They don’t care who “built it” they believe “government is the only thing that we all belong to.”

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Bones,

    Spot on analysis about how Republicans do not need to move left. I have been saying this since the Bush days. To me the Democrats moved much more to the left and there are more liberals in congress because of it, likewise I believe the Republicans in congress for many years especially under Bush acted like Democrats. They spent money like crazy, and expanded the government until Obama the most since FDR. So to me Republican enthusiasm will come when the Republicans in Congress finally act like Republicans, or a real conservative gets nominated, nothing against the last two candidates but like you said and like you said about W they were not that conservative.

    Conservatives or ones who call themselves conservatives need to stop appeasing and giving the liberals in congress things they want. At this point we need to cut spending drastically, until real Republicans are in congress(not these democrat-republican by name types) people will not be happy and involved like they want to be. The Republican party has pissed off much of its base because they haven’t acted like a real Republican, the Tea Party helped them to realize this, but even some of the people that the Tea Party helped get elected turned out to be less conservative and democrat leaning as well(democrat in how i described before, they are technically republican but dont act like it). Look at Scott Brown he got elected solely to help stop Obama and the Democrats agenda in the senate and what does he do, He votes with the democrats on the majority of issues! It is mind boggling what these politicians do, or what their idiotic advisors tell them is best for them to do.

  • Bill Hedges

    Issues of the nation did not defeat Republicans in my opinion. We won seat in MA with man who was against bumcare and for water boarding from liberal icon. Nov. 2, 2010 showed voters were against legislation buma wanted, but was NO FOUL upon buma himself.

    Cain was found guilty by innuendos, Newt by divorce, Gov. of Texas for momentary lapse of memory. & Mitt for business transactions. That is a simplified explanation & not all inclusive. Just as BAD slid off buma’s back like water off a duck’s back.

    Democrats were allowed to say we did not pay for tax cuts for rich WTHOUT DEFENSE by us. When the CBO clearly proves it increases revenue. I DOUBT explanation could be accomplished without hard, repeated clear message:

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts

    buma has his 2nd term. Unless his actions to GO AROUND a Republican House that won’t do his bidding gets him into Impeachment territory. OR whatever. I am *per·plexed*
    that Nov. 2, 2010 did not rub off on buma.

    I think 2016 is different. No more armored buma running. The 4 year + wait (after election) bumcare will have materialized & was all hype. The taxes for bumcare will have stung our economy. CBO’s bumcare predictions SHOULD destroy democrat’s hype. Spending MUST DIE with piggy bank broken & spent. Their answer to tax the rich will dry up the well of economic growth, jobs, & revenue. When has tax hikes on rich EVER lived up to their goals ? Tax cuts for rich DID.

    Could buma rescind EPA and come forth FOR carbon exploration ??? A pot full of jobs, government revenue, stop flow of foreign oil causing $$$’s to leave, & a nation changer !!! We should mount our goal to this NOW. Only quick viable answer I see that’s workable. This we should push…

  • Bill Hedges

    Part 2

    Bones

    “George W. Bush wasn’t exactly conservative either. “…. 2 unfunded foreign wars….”

    First off debt has overspent even increased revenue from tax cuts for rich. In my second link increased spending under presidents is given. While Pelosi was Speaker Republicans did not control Congress. Agree Bush should of vetoed MORE.

    wARS was funded:

    “Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.”

    “In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

    JFK

    http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html

    http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/taxcutmyths.htm

    “Who Really Benefited From the Bush Tax Cuts? ”

    “Many believe the Reagan and Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy. However, data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that poor and middle income Americans have benefited more than the wealthy.”

    “In 1979, the poorest 20% of earners paid no income tax. By 2007, that same group had a negative income tax rate of 6.8%. In other words, they took home 6.8% more than they paid in to the federal government. Middle income Americans paid an effective income tax rate (the amount paid after deductions) of .5% in 1979. That rate was cut to .3% in 2007, a drop of more than 50%.”

    “What about those dastardly one percenters? Back in the days of Jimmy Carter, Americans in the top one percent of earners paid an effective tax rate of .8%. The effective tax rate fell all the way to … wait for it … %.”

    “Even when taking into account all federal taxes, the poor and middle class have benefited more than their wealthy counterparts. In 1979, the total effective federal tax rate (including payroll taxes, excise, capital gains, estate, and corporate taxes) was % for the poorest Americans and 18.6% for middle income earners. Thanks to the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, those rates fell 50% and 23%, respectively. The top one percent of earners had their total effective tax rate fall 21% over the same time period.”

    “The tax code has also become more progressive. As indicated above, the top 1% of earners now pay an effective income tax rate of 19%, nearly six times the percent paid by middle income earners (3.3%). In 1979, the differential between the rate paid by the top one percent was less than three times that of middle class earners.”

    “Not surprisingly, the wealthy are also paying more of the tab now than they did 30 years ago. In 1980, the top 5% of income earners paid 37% of all income tax revenue, while the bottom 50% paid 7%. By 2009, the top 5% of earners paid a whopping %, while the bottom half of earners paid just 2.25% of the total pie.”

    “The wealthy also pay more than their representative income would dictate. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, the top 1% earned 17% of the total income in 2009. Meanwhile, they paid 37% of all the taxes paid. The bottom half of earners took in 13% of the 2009 total taxable income, yet paid just 2.25% of the total tax revenue.”

    “But haven’t all these tax cuts blown a hole in our budget? The answer is no. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues remained at or near historic levels as a percentage of GDP until the financial collapse in 2007. In fact, tax revenue as a percentage of GDP was exactly the same in 1979 as it was in 2007: .5%. With the recession, tax revenue has dipped to 14.9% of GDP, while spending has risen to 25%, which accounts for our widening deficit.”

    “If current tax rates are left in place, the CBO projects that tax revenue will return to historic levels by 2021, while spending will remain well above historic levels, 26% of GDP. The picture gets even worse with time. The CBO predicts spending to reach % of GDP by 2035. It would be impossible to collect 34% of GDP in revenue without steep tax increases on all Americans; including the poor and middle class. There simply aren’t enough rich people to pay the bill. To put this in perspective, in order to close the budget gap in 2010 solely on the backs of those making more than $250,000, the two highest tax brackets would have to rise to percent and 142 percent. Of course, it’s impossible to tax individuals more than 100%; even if it were desirable.”

    “In sum, the tax cuts enacted by Reagan and Bush have benefited the poor and middle class more than the wealthy. Their taxes have been cut more drastically than wealthy Americans, and many have been taken off the tax rolls altogether. In 2009, a majority of Americans paid no federal income tax. The poor and middle class also pay a far lower percentage of the total revenue pie now. Despite across the board tax cuts, revenues have remained essentially constant. Unfortunately, our spending has ballooned, and is only projected to increase with time”

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/3701/who-really-benefited-from-the-bush-tax-cuts

  • Bob

    Bones;

    I too share your distrust of both parties but consider myself Conservative. I find it a bit unsettling that my friends and family believe that this means Republican and expect me to defend the Republican position constantly.

    I look forward to hearing your views no matter what side of the fence they fall.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Bob,

    There is no point defending Republicans, the majority are pretty liberal themselves how they act towards spending.

    Hedges you said “Cain was found guilty by innuendos, Newt by divorce, Gov. of Texas for momentary lapse of memory. & Mitt for business transactions. That is a simplified explanation & not all inclusive. Just as BAD slid off buma’s back like water off a duck’s back.”

    Just imagine if Mitt Romney went to a mormon church for twenty years and listened to hate speeches all the time. The fact the Jeremiah Wright disappeared because Obama gave a speech is unreal. Bill Ayers disappeared as well, Tony Rezko, just to name a few. IF any of these were brought up against a Republican the media would have persecuted them until they had to bow out of the race.

    How Obama got away with having Rev Wright on his campaign, the fact that Rev Wright married him and Michelle, and the long list of incendiary things that the man preached on weekly basis is down right scary.

  • Bill Hedges

    buma passed economic agenda as well as his bumcare was hated in polls & lead to massive loss of demo seats nationwide & in DC Nov. 2, 2010. Same sex failed to pass thanks to buma’s urging.

    Equal pay for women NOT for buma WH:

    “Obama Throws ‘Equal Pay’ Stones from Glass House”

    “There is no greater example of how phony and disingenuous the “war on women” rhetoric President Barack Obama and Democrats are using against Republicans this election cycle than the Obama Administration’s war on its female staffers in the White House.”

    buma “….continue to deny his female staffers “equal pay for equal work.”According to a study the Washington Free Beacon did of the salaries of White House staffers, women made 18 percent less than men did in Obama’s White House.”

    ********** For public consumption not on demos to do list **********:

    “On National Equal Pay Day, let us resolve to become a Nation that values the contributions of our daughters as much as those of our sons, denies them no opportunity, and sets no limits on their dreams,” Obama wrote. “I call upon all Americans to recognize the full value of women’s skills and their significant contributions to the labor force, acknowledge the injustice of wage discrimination, and join efforts to achieve equal pay.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/17/obama-throws-equal-pay-stones-from-glass-house

  • Bill Hedges

    “Same sex failed to pass thanks to buma’s urging” in CA…

  • JD McAfoose

    I don’t see why republicans are so upset about the election… to me it was a strong campaign but the wrong candidate. Lesson has been learned and I think 2016 will see the Republican party with a good candidate to go with a good campaign.

    I also think we will not be hearing about the tea party very much from hear on out.

  • Bill Hedges

    After a devastating loss of control of Congress because demos JUST HAD TO PASS buma’s agenda which polls showed voters were against, Republicans took control of house Nov. 2, 2010 in record numbers. (If Tea is dying so are demos). Recently voters did not give demos 25 seats in House for a repeat DEMO CONTROL congress. Voters said NO. HOUSE will say NO to buma. buma HAS NO mandate. Republicans given mandate to stop the demo insanity.

    Thanks TEA for stopping recall of Walker in WI. A very demo State with strong unions. Voters reaffirmed their appreciation of Walkers good deeds for WI…

  • Bob

    When is the right not right? When it’s defined by the left!

  • Mike R

    Nate:

    I fully understand that Republicans don’t like your opponents telling you how to run your party. But since I’m not a member of any party, I hope you won’t mind my offering a few observations.

    I found it very interesting that in this election 73% of self-identified Asian Americans voted for the President. Here is a population which has a reputation for being socially conservative, nurturing strong family bonds, disciplining their children and requiring them to behave and achieve in school. They are seen as hard-working people, many of whom establish successful small businesses. A high percentage of the second generation complete college and enter the professions. This would seem to be a group that would naturally gravitate toward the fiscally conservative party. Why don’t they?

    I think we can find the answer in various places on this site. A conservative on this site recently stated that black people voted for Mr. Obama because they want “a handout or a check”. He has gone on to say that a majority of “them” don’t want to work or look for a job. He doesn’t want to look up the figures because that would be a waste of his time.

    Other conservatives on this site have suggested that we should nuke the entire Islamic world, and not a single conservative here saw fit to call them on this insane nonsense.

    Should it surprise you that millions of black voters, people working in occupations from janitor to medical doctor, are resentful and angry about being slandered this way? Should it surprise you that they identify this kind of racist nonsense with the political right, since that is where it lives?

    Asian Americans would probably be voting for Republicans if they did not see so much racism and xenophobia on the right. They suspect, and rightly so, that people who want to incinerate all Muslims and believe all black people are social parasites also don’t have much use for ‘chinks’ and ‘gooks’.

    I’m not saying you’re one of these people. You’ve said nothing to make me think you’re a racist. But where are the intelligent non-racist fiscal conservatives who are willing to condemn racist xenophobic nonsense?

    My father was a racist. He was a wonderful man and the best father a boy ever had, but he went to his grave not understanding that the problems in the black community are not the result of some kind of genetic inferiority, but of centuries of exclusion and oppression and a culture which emerged as a defence against these things. He was part of a dying breed, a breed which still forms a signifigant part of the base of the Republican party.

    Your party is on the horns of a delimma. The dying breed is it’s ball and chain. It must cut the chain if it is to survive within the changing demographic trends, but if it cuts the chain it will lose votes in the short run. You don’t need to pander to anyone. You need to stop pandering to the racism on the right by pretending it doesn’t exist.

  • Bill Hedges

    Mike R

    1. You were asked to prove your statement that racist moved to Republican party. Failure to try after initial statement. You NAME CALLED me to Bones.

    2. “a handout or a check” statements was explained just not to your liking. The old wives tale of RACIST felt in your breath. He does not have to give figures. He is a free man. You want figures you look up. Figures come with link to be legitimate by the way (73% of self-identified Asian Americans voted. Where is your link ? ).

    Those who coin racist upon others without firm justification are a race baiter.

    2. “Other conservatives on this site have suggested that we should nuke the entire Islamic world, and not a single conservative here saw fit to call them on this insane nonsense”

    Shooter in AZ was influenced by Palin & Fox causing him to shoot Congress woman. Harming others as well as murdering. SO I HEAR. A liberal sherif started this speaking from his ignorance IN AZ. Liberal site I also go to had 100’s of liberals commenting similar statements as the sherif. Think we all know the truth was lacking in that.

    Insanity I don’t argue with. That is “nuke the entire Islamic world”.

    3. You want to explain WHY Black vote demo ? Don’t understand your attempt. As I proved in previous article, demos were the racist kkk. Republicans joined the free Blacks & slaved. Many a civil rights bill was passed by all Republicans voting for. Last civil right bill was part of Republican CONTRACT WITH AMERICA and Newt lead on floor to get passed into law.

    Voters vote wallet & self interest.

    4. “Republicans if they did not see so much racism and xenophobia on the right”

    We are racist for being against bumcare so says Jimmy Carter & Bill Crosby. Polls was against bumcare before passed and still are. CBO says bumcare will destroy our economy. We are against Bill Clinton’s heath care plan. You throw in xenophobia. Proof of xenophobia given by you are a few comments here. I dare say comments containing xenophobia remarks ARE NOT REGULARS ON THIS SITE. The wind blows in ALL SORTS at times.

    Your perception of facts is…… NUTS. ANOTHER LIBERAL ***** shooter in AZ was influenced by FAR FAR FAR right. THOSE DARN TEA*****…..NUTS

    5. “Your party is on the horns of a delimma. The dying breed is it’s ball and chain”

    Guess nationwide record win by us Nov. 2, 2010 has skipped your mind. 8 years of Bush. Newt elected Speaker with influx of Republicans.

    Death of US is ……. NUTS… YOUR ASSERTIONS FOUNDED IN worse assumptions associated in AZ shooting… We know the truth of THAT…

  • Bill Hedges

    I guess all mass killers are conservative.

    BAD…. CONSERVATIVE…

  • Bob

    Mike R:

    I stumbled upon this link to the figures you gave on Asian-Americans vote in this past election.When someone gives good facts I’ll be the first to acknowledge it.It’s from “The American Conservative” magazine no less.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-gops-asian-american-fiasco/

  • Bill Hedges

    Bob _ “It’s from “The American Conservative” magazine no less.” Best place to get great data. Liberal sites is generally really lacking good data…

    From Bob’s link:

    “The main reason for the growing support for Democrats among members of this electoral bloc is that that younger and more educated Asian-Americans are drifting by large numbers to Obama’s party, very much like younger and more educated white Americans.”

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-gops-asian-american-fiasco/

    More accurately for buma. Like Bill Clinton buma can do no wrong. But his agenda was a different story. Voting for bumcare was a death sentence Nov. 2, 2010 for most demos. Polls against nearly every bill rushed through & passed in demo controlled congress. Nov. 2, 2010 BURNED demos BAD. Liberals only think that date. NEVER SPEAK for anyone to hear.

    With re-election, STILL no House for buma. Look pretty in WH but carry tiny, tiny STICK. FEW demos wanted buma onstage promoting them to congress. DREAM ON Republican party is dying. Real numbers don’t support that. For whatever the reason buma can do NO WRONG but other demos CAN & DO. Voters had boot for many.

    Don’t count your chickens until they hatch. buma can not run for third term…

  • Mike R

    Bob:

    Thanks for the link. Interesting. The next to last paragraph says just about what I say above. Does it make sense to you?

  • Bill Hedges

    After buma re-election WE still HAVE HOUSE. Nov. 2, 2010 was a disaster for Demos.
    Young are voting for buma that’s it. buma has no shoulders to support others. Want no repeat of when buma had demo controlled congress.

    Going to prove now racist went to Republican party ???

  • Bob

    Bill:

    You refer to Nov.2010.That was then …….this is now.The Republican majority in the House could disappear in a vapor very easily in the mid-term elections of 2014.The Republican parties image of being out of touch isn’t going to disappear without some soul searching and tons of work.

    Mike R:

    Yes the case you made holds water in as far as Asian-Americans don’t rely on entitlements as enticements. Republicans lost is quite a few demographic groups and thats what is upsetting.

  • Bob

    With that being said:

    Under the guise of being “reasonable” I don’t understand why the left constantly insist of the right throwing it’s people under the bus for the lefts interpretation of “racist”.In most cases they claim they would do the same but there is little evidence to show for it.An example in point is Nate stated above(Nov.9th @11:58 AM) that he feels Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz would be an attractive Republican candidate in future elections and no doubt win Hispanic votes. I can’t fathom however why either one of these candidates wouldn’t face the same questioning of their Hispanic ethnicity being authentic by the left that a black Republican has had to answer to.

    The left claims to be tolerent of others ideas and want a bi-partisan Congress yet continue this divide and conquer aspect of politics.American politics it seems has become the side that defines the vocabulary of the debate wins the debate.

  • Bill Hedges

    Bob “That was then …….this is now”. You ignored MY NOW. YOU want to discuss 2014. That’s future. Where is YOUR PRESENT ? Did I muddy your theory ??? Your link had past and now. Why wouldn’t I mention Nov. 2, 2010 ? You don’t like my evidence ???

    I talked BOTH. History of tax cuts for rich providing more revenue & creating jobs goes back to the twenties until now. With CBO real numbers supporting. THAT data strays from liberal beliefs THEREFORE ignored because CBO’s real numbers COMPLETELY support.

    Here you have data you can twist to fit your needs. But real election results shows buma enjoys the spoils not his demos. Polls & voters hated passed agenda.

    Your data does not show reasons for us “being out of touch” that is YOUR CONCLUSION. CHANGE in you link POINTS TO YOUTH (they grow old). demos under Clinton saved by us. Polls hated buma’s agenda & took his demo congress control AWAY.

    THIS WEEK did we become “being out of touch” ??? The loss of Nov. 2, 2010 was not overturned in last election. Maybe NOT in next election. CHANGE happens. Been that way a long time.

    OLD SAYING. Young should be liberal. Age turns them conservative. Cain dared to be black and run for Republican Presidency.

    Look at the elected Republicans to demo and prove your “being out of touch” statement. Don’t hold your breathe we are going to say make all the illegals legal and giv full American citizenship. When demos had FULL CONTROL they didn’t pass that. Nor ame sex mariage. ETC.. Reagan made move to make some acceptance but close the boarders as well. But Teddy smashed that portion.

    There is bought votes portion. With say $ 16 trillion national debt, $16 trillion federal reserve loaned out with no % interest charged or re-payment plan, and $16 trillion entitlement funds spent on other things thus GONE (my s/s was paid for. Me + employer + interest for 40 + years)= Future economy IN DIRE DOUBT even if one can lower my numbers. SOONER not LATER there will be no money to buy votes. Predictions by us will come true. EVEN Big Bird & Reed’s Cowboy Poet Society will lose government funding. Deeper for sure…

  • Mike R

    I’m not interested in throwing anyone under any bus. It’s ideas you need to deal with, not people. We have a great example of these ideas emerging over the past few days—the idea that states should begin seceding from the union.

    I’ve been browsing the net for commentary on the issue. I find secessionists and liberals arguing, and no conservatives saying what all Americans should be saying, something like this:

    “we have all pledged our allegiance to this republic, one nation indivisable. We are one people, a people with a worthy and often glorious, history, and capable of a great future. Talk of secession is treasonous and ludicrous.”

    Lincoln, in his great address, prayed that government of, by and for the people might not perish from the earth. He understood that democracy was still being born in Europe, and that if the world’s first democratic republic split, the world’s faith in the possibility of democratic government would be wounded, maybe fatally. Lincoln was a big thinker. Democracy has made great strides since his time, but there is much territory yet to be won. And we have people who would split the republic because they lost a couple of free and fair elections!

    The average voter doesn’t pay as much attention to politics as you or I do. Most operate on impressions. What does this average voter think when he sees many thousands of professed republicans demanding that his country should be split up? He gets the impression that people on the right are nuts and that their professed patriotism is a sham. The silly secessionist fever will die out, but the impression will remain.

    If you know that the black unemployment rate is around 13% and was 8 or 9% before the recession; and when you hear a fellow conservative say that the majority of black people don’t work or look for work; that they vote for democrats only because they’re looking for a handout, shouldn’t you be the one who sets him straight? As a fellow conservative you have better credentials than I do. He’s not going to listen to me, but he might listen to you.

    What does that average voter, maybe a white person who has black co-workers and friends, think about this stuff?She doesn’t make any sharp distinction between you and the person espousing such hateful nonsense . To her, right wingers tend to be racist. You let yourself be tarred with the brush that is rightfully meant for him.

    I said before that the Republican Party is on the horns of a dilemma. The real turning point in this election is that it has proved that the majority of Americans, fifty years after the civil rights movement, have learned to judge people of different races and ethnicities as individuals and not according to old stereotypes. Such people don’t like bigotry. They want it to end, and they won’t vote for a party which appears accepting of it.

    You and I should be arguing about how to reduce the country’s sovereign debt, how to reduce health care’s share of GDP, how to rejuvinate our collapsed educational system. We need a conservative party to stand for economic and personal responsibility. I don’t want to see that party disappear. I want to see it reemerge stripped of the old ideas which are holding it down.

  • Bob

    Bill:
    You seem to be the one ignoring the “NOW”.All the stats you give make sense to people who take the time to read them but the electorate DIDN’T in 2008,DIDN’T read them this past election and chances are won’t in the future.Where is my present?………read the election results from last week.If “polls and voters hated passed agenda”as you say they sure didn’t show it.

    I gave my opinion why we were out of touch in a few past post.The President bought the election on the cheap.He didn’t have to spend big money on advertisements or rallies….just make campaign promises and show the public he cares.How much is true and how much will change will be seen.Right now no one has the answer.Or the Republican party can waddle in their memories of past elections glory!

  • Bob

    Mike R:

    You seem to focus more on the little and unimportant aspects of what is being said among Conservatives.Is the leadership of conservatives advocating “nuking” anyone? Is the leadership of the Conservatives advocating “sucession”? I haven’t heard anyone in authority say this.If I remember right the left talked about breaking away after Bush(“W”)was re-elected in 2004 wih many Hollywood people threatening to move out of the country.No one took them serious and obviously neither did they.

    No it isn’t my job to go around straightening out everyone on the right who has a wacko opinion.If I thought that I could change peoples opinions I wouldn’t accomplish anything more than if I tried to talk a jahadist into embracing democracy.This sites purpose isn’t winning or losing arguements or for getting all your ducks in a row but to exchange ideas and possibly have someone of the opposite political party say “I never thought of it that way before.” The other Mike who had health problems and wrote on this site did this with me once or twice.If people “can’t make a sharp distinction”as you say between me and the people spouting nonsense then they don’t want to listen and me disavowing them isn’t going to sway them to my side.

    Yes the Republican party is in a dilemma and I don’t know how they are going to resolve it…no one does as it stands today.However it isn’t from people giving up on sterotyping others.Your post asking if I was concerned about a co-worker lumping me with someone who has wacko views proves that.Sterotypes are alive and well as proven by the voter demographics this past election.

    I look forward to having conversations with you on how the country should move forward.But lets not dignify with importance the insignifigant issues like sucession and some of the unusual ideas the OWS crowd feels important.

  • Mike R

    Bob:

    I am the other Mike. I found that another Mike was posting and I got mistaken for him once, so I added the R. Didn’t mean to deceive anyone. Guess I should have made some kind of announcement.

    All I want is for the truth to spread. I’ve learned things on this site because I’ve been challenged, been driven to look for new facts and think about them. I go to liberal sites and call out some of the bonehead nonsense I see there. I assume you see nothing of value in the liberal tradition. I do, and I’d like to see liberalism stripped of some of it’s holier-than-thou bleeding heartism.

    I don’t think racism is a “little and unimportant aspect” of anything. I don’t like white racism. I don’t like black racism. I don’t like ignorance in general. It seems to me that the only good reason we have for talking and arguing with one another is to teach and learn. Teach and learn from our opponents and our allies.

  • Bill Hedges

    “If “polls and voters hated passed agenda”as you say they sure didn’t show it.”

    NOT “if” BUT did. BUMCARE STILL hated. They showed it Nov. 2, 2010 and after recent election we STILL CONTROL HOUSE. Have already said this MANY TIMES why must I keep repeating ? Control of congress was held a short time for a POPULAR PRESIDENT. Voters has tied his hands with no mandate.

    MIKE R says racist went Republican. I showed NO. Obviously Mike R isn’t going to counter and try to prove his case. Not interested in this foolish few who are talking secession. Wasn’t interested when liberals said John McCain was not a natural citizen & thus not qualifed to run for President.

    Unless Mike R wishes to back his statement that racist moved to my party then enough of this comment for me. There are other articles here. You two enjoy this article.

    Mike had to go INSULT with me. Something I’ve seen many times when a liberal gets flustered…

  • Bob

    Mike R:

    I didn’t mean to infer that racism is insignifigant.What I was trying to say was calling someone out on a perceived belief of them being racist is based on objectivity and doesn’t accomplish anything besides alienating the two sides.The term racist is being thrown around in todays society to freely and with the intention of putting the person on the defensive.

    As I wrote to Bones I have a distrust of both parties and consider myself a Conservative.I do however look forward to exchanging ideas and thoughts with you.

  • Mike R

    You don’t need to call people racist. Just point out racist ideas when you see them. You change people’s minds by exposing the flaws in their thinking, not by attaching a label to them.

  • Bob

    Mike R:

    Hmmmm I fail to see the difference between calling someone a racist and pointing out to them they have racist ideas.Either way it’s insulting and as I said earlier you don’t accomplish anything but alienating people by doing this.

    Also as I pointed out what the left may see as racist and you may consider a “flaw in their thinking” they could call it rational logic.Just as you called out the contributor on this site Obama-Sucks who stated that many blacks voted for the President because of entitlements given to them based on his view of what is happening in his immediate neighborhood.You yourself in your post of 13th November @ 2:16 PM stated “Asian Americans would probably be voting Republican if they didn’t see so much racism and xenophobia on the right.” You go on to state “They suspect and RIGHTLY SO that people who want to incinerate all Muslims and believe blacks to be parasites also don’t have much use for CHINKS AND GOOKS.” Now to me you are doing the same thing you accussed Obama-sucks of doing which is basing your”opinion on observation” without a thread of proof. Not only that but you are “attaching labels” AND ACCUSE US OF MAKING WRONGFUL INFLAMMATORY REMARKS BY ATTACHING THE TERMS “CHINK AND GOOK”.

    When the term “racist” is thrown around so loosely it’s no wonder the dialogue between the left and right is nonexistent.

  • Mike R

    Bob:

    There’s a big difference between calling somebody a racist and pointing out racist ideas. If a black person says to me, “White folks think they’re better than everybody else,” I’m going to point out that thats a wrong idea based on a racial stereotype. It’s just not true, and I’m going to show him examples to prove it’s not true. You can’t characterize a whole race that way and be making a rational statement.

    Sure O.S. thinks he’s making a rational, true statement when he says the majority of black people don’t want to work. If he didn’t think so, he wouldn’t say it. But it’s not grounded in reason and it’s not true. It’s a commonly believed slander, a false idea that hurts people and hurts the country. Should we let him go on believing a destructive lie for fear of offending him? By the way, he didn’t say many blacks, he said blacks vote for democrats because they get a handout or a check.

    As for my statement regarding “chinks” and “gooks”, I understand your point. My assertion was based on anecdotal evidence, the fact that many people I have known who denigrate one race also denigrate others. I don’t know of any statistics to prove that, so I won’t insist on it. But I still suspect that idea plays a role in Asian-American voting patterns.

    You say I “accuse us of making wrongful inflammatory remarks”. Who is “us”? Nothing I’ve said should lead you to think that I believe all, or even a majority of, conservatives are racist. That would be just one more unjustified stereotype. What I’ve said is that racist statements by people who identify themselves as conservatives throw your party in a bad light and hurt your party in elections. I think that’s true, and I think you know it’s true.

  • Bones

    Bob and Mike R

    I think your discussion highlights how charged the racial issue has been of late. I agree with Mike that there is a huge difference between ideas with racist underpinning and calling someone a racist. Unfortunately, the terms “racism” and “racist” are too charged and accusatory for anyone to be expected to discuss the issues without taking offense.

    Yes, African-Americans voted Obama in higher percentages than any other group. Does that imply racism? Not to me. But it’s probably not a coincidence, either. To my mind, politicians are always trying to “connect” with people, and in general I think people are more likely to feel more connected with those who remind them of their family.

    By the same token, Obama won 69% of the Jewish vote, 55% of the Woman vote, 71% of the Hispanic vote, 85% of the Muslim vote, and 73% of the Asian vote.

    http://nation.foxnews.com/muslim-american-votes/2012/11/09/poll-85-american-muslims-voted-obama
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/gender-gap-2012-election-obama_n_2086004.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/jewish-voter-exit-polls_n_2084008.html
    http://www.statista.com/statistics/245878/voter-turnout-of-the-exit-polls-of-the-2012-elections-by-ethnicity/

    In fact, the only large body of people who voted majority for Mitt Romney were, like Mitt Romney himself, White Males. I don’t believe this is coincidence either, and it makes a case for racism that seems every bit as convincing as anything else we’ve heard. But again, I don’t think this is racism at play, not really. I just think white guys liked him better.

    I don’t like this demographic game. I think we can get information from these statistics, but I also think that it makes us lump everyone into their stereotypes. You can’t point to someone and tell me why they voted how they did, unless that person already explained it to you. The most politically active person I knew this campaign was a Black Woman, and I know very well that she voted Obama. I also know why. She voted Obama because she’s in love, wants to get married, and she’s gay. Her skin tone doesn’t even come into it. I couldn’t find any statistics on the gay vote, but I’ve got a hunch that I know who the majority voted for (hint: I don’t think it’s the party that introduced DOMA).

    I do think that the GOP is losing out partly because they have alienated so many groups. Women, they’ve alienate with talk of abortion rights. Hispanics, with this push toward self-deportation (the Arizona law makes life hellish for legal immigrants, because of the racial profiling involved). Rick Santorum, speaking in Puerto Rico, told them that if they wanted to become a state, they’d better learn English (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/us-usa-campaign-puertorico-idUSBRE82D16Z20120314).

    The GOP aliented Gays, by moving to block their ability to marry (Mike Huckabee compared homosexuality to bestiality, and all the right wing preachers who blame the gays for every major weather event doesn’t exactly help either). Muslim’s because well, the GOP is anything but subtle regarding their distrust of Muslims. I work with an american-born woman of Muslim heritage (she’s not particularly religious), and talked with her just after her honeymoon. When she casually mentioned getting taken into the back room by TSA, I was horrified. She says it happens to her every single time she flies.

    Frankly, I think the GOP makes it very easy for the Democrats to win these groups over. I DO hope that politicians such as Marco Rubio herald a change.

  • Bob

    Mike R:
    I understand your point in regard to calling someone a racist and pointing out racist ideas. My point is I don’t believe it would be productive or accomplish anything by doing so.Human nature tells me people are going to be offended either way.

    O.S statement is about as rational as your statement when you say Asian Americans suspect the right wants to “incinerate all Muslims and all blacks are parasites”. I fail to see how this is grounded in any logic or reason.Im sure O.S. can plead that his statement is based on “Anecdotal evidence”and he’s “suspects this plays into black voting patterns”. Parsing words can work both ways.

    I believe if you look at your statement “They suspect and rightly so that people who want to incinerate all Muslims and believe blacks to be parasites also don’t have much use for chinks and gooks.” Now the purpose of this exercise originally was that we on the right should disavow anyone making these statements or they will lump us together.The “US” would be anyone on the right WHO WON’T DISAVOW HIS STATEMENTS and you inferred the same by you saying “RIGHTLY SO”.

    Look Mike I’m not into and don’t enjoy this parsing peoples statements word by word.I’m also not looking for anyone to supply any evidence of their statements validity. Once again I feel you put to much weight on the statements of individuals.Nonsensical statements people make reflect on themselves not on the party.This doesn’t apply of course if you are the Vice President of the United States and every move you make is just to change feet in your mouth.

  • Bob

    Bones;

    I have no arguements with anything you said.It makes sense and has been covered by hundreds of people before we tackled it here.

    Voting for someone you can relate to has been a voting practice for years.I would imagine the term “favorite son” could be applied not only to someone from your state but the same religion,occupation or any number of things.

    The statement you made about the discussion is the one that holds the most impact however.”Unfortunately the terms racism and racist are to charged and accusatory for anyone to be expected to discuss the issues without taking offense.”

  • Bob

    Mike R:
    When were you in Vietnam and where ?

  • Mike R

    Wasn’t there. Did my service in Germany.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    Mike,
    Thank you for your service! Where were you stationed in Deutschland?

  • Mike R

    Bob:

    I got into an argument with a liberal the other day. She wants to put quotas on discipline for black students because black students get disciplined more than white students. I despise this kind of bleeding heart nonsense.
    What I said to her went something like this:

    “I used to run a group home for boys. They were high school kids who’d been convicted of various felonies. Most were black gang kids from the ghettos of the state’s capital city. We ran a highly-disciplined, highly-structured program—lots of strenuous exercise, homework with tutors every evening, sharp negative consequences for negative behavior. Once one of the black kids complained that the black kids got punished more than the white kids. I said, ‘you guys break the rules more than the white kids, don’t you?’. He grinned and said yes. The discussion was over.”

    I asked the bleeding-heart why she couldn’t understand what that kid understood. Kids raised in a culture of poverty, black or white, tend to be poorly socialized, rebellious and disruptive. You don’t help these kids by letting them get away with negative, self destructive behavior.

    Working with kids like that isn’t easy, but if you do it right you can do some good. We had kids who learned that they weren’t stupid, that they could actually succeed in school. We exposed them to the world outside the ghetto, and some of them gained asperations and hope for the future that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. But that depends on understanding that they are people just like me, understanding that if I had been born poor among a race that had been excluded for centuries, kept from education and advancement, I’d probably be just like them.

    There are still people in this country who don’t understand that. It’s easier to think black people are naturally inferior, that the majority of them don’t want to work, that they have crime and laziness in their genes. It’s easier to think of them as something different and less than “us”. It won’t do to pretend these attitudes don’t exist, that racism is dead in America.

    But it is dying. In the half century since the civil rights movement more and more white people have come to understand that black people are full human beings, to see them as friends and neighbors, good people and bad, to be judged as individuals with the same needs, abilities and responsibilities as the rest of us. They understand that the pathologies in black culture, the kinds of behaviors that make ghetto kids disruptive in school, are aspects of culture that arose as defences against oppression and habits that developed through years of having to scramble and dodge just to survive. As racism dies out, those pathologies die out.

    What do conservatives think about these things? How many conservatives know that welfare is 12% of the federal budget, and that defense, social security and medicare are each are about a 25%? Welfare isn’t the big driver of the debt, taking care of old people and the military are. I think too many conservatives believe that we’re in debt because we’re throwing money at lazy minorities.

    Mitt Romney just announced that Barack Obama won the election by buying minority votes with ‘gifts’. This was a slap in the face to every minority voter. How would you like somebody telling you that you sell your sacred vote for money? I’m glad to see that he’s been called out on that by some leading Republicans. The idea that this is a country of white “makers” and minority “takers” just won’t fly any more. It won’t fly not only because minorities don’t buy it, but because ever increasing numbers of white voters aren’t buying it.

    I just want to get all that nonsense out of the way and start having a real argument/discussion about the real drivers of the deficit and how to fix them. I want people of all races and ethnicities to stop dividing on race and start dividing on solutions to our economic delimma—the cost of defence and maintenance of the elderly.

  • Mike R

    O.S.

    An ordnance company near Frankfurt. How about you?

  • Bob

    Mike R:

    First off no one said racism is dead.As you know from your experience it flows freely on both sides.The original point of this discussion was why the right doesn’t throw our people under the bus more often like the left would want.After every article that is written by either Landreaux or Nate there is a box that states the comment section is from the on-line community and “Please don’t assume that You Decide Politics agrees or endores any particular comment”.Therefore your plea for them to throw our people under the bus has little validity.

    Now on to your most recent post.You seem to hold the two parties to a double standard when it comes to political views.In your post of 15th November @1:59AM in paragraph 3 you say “My assertion was based on anecdotal evidence the fact that many people I have known who denigerate one also denigerate the others.I don’t know of any statistics to prove that so I won’t insist on it.But I still suspect that idea plays a role in Asian-American voting patterns.”In your most recent post you say “I think to many conservatives believe that were in debt because were throwing money at lazy minorities.” While back in paragraph 4 of the 15th of November post you fend innocence stating “That would be an unjust sterotype.” You seem to want to make accusations and “unjust steotyping” of the right but don’t want sterotyping when the right does it.In addition it sounds like you feel you can make accusations but don’t want to assume the results of your actions.

    Yes I also have stated that President Obama did buy the election on the cheap but I’ll have to go into that later today.Right now I have an appointment I need to make.

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    I tend to agree with what Romney said after the election, when you can get free healthcare, free handouts, checks, and even Cell phones easily, I tend to think of those as gifts to people.

    Now obviously not everyone in that 51% he won was in this group, but sure as hell was a lot who looked at this election and knew Romney was not about to hand out anything like that, and would probably make it harder to get welfare an such.

  • Bob

    Mike R:

    It would be naive for anyone to believe that a political campaign doesn’t involve promising things if elected.This election wasn’t any different than any other….except in one regard.President Obama didn’t have a positive record to run on nor a predecessor to blame his plight on.

    The Democratic campaign coffers were getting beaten by the Republicans in donations and were no where near what they had been back in 2008 so how was the President going to get re-elected? He does it on the cheap by simply by making promises to favorable demographic groups if elected.He promises same sex marriage,immigration reform,college loans vanish,and any number of other perks.Now I’m not going to cover each group and how much the President won by as proof,Bones did that very well in his earlier post.Let me just say that Mr.Romney won the married womens vote 53% to 46% but lost the single womens vote by a whopping 68% to 30%.As American society stands today there are less than 50% of the households have married couples.The illegitimacy rate is over 40% and the percentage of women voters rose to 54%…..well you can see where the promise of free contraception is heading.

    Meanwhile you seem offended and say it is a “slap in the face” that the notion of voters have’nt felt their vote sacred.Deal with it politians use people and voters have been selling their vote for as long as our country has existed for as little as a shot of whiskey.You want to show pious outrage then confront todays Congress who would sell their vote at a whim to the highest lobbist or union.The left needs to learn human nature and that humans aren’t angels but they look for angles. And the President found his angle.

    Individuals have no authority to speak for the party therefore nonsensical statements reflect on the individual not the party.The only time individuals statements are taken serious is when the MSM makes a concerted effort to portray it that way.

  • Mike R

    Bob:

    Lots of points here. I’ll try to deal with all of them.

    1. I’ve made it perfectly clear that I want to throw certain ideas under the bus, not people.

    2. I said, “I think too many conservatives believe that we’re in debt because we’re throwing money at lazy minorities”. You site this as an example of stereotyping and a double standard on my part. I’m going to make a series of statements of opinion, all of which I believe are true:

    Too many conservatives believe that we’re in debt because we’re throwing money at lazy minorities.

    Too many liberals talk like they think money grows on trees.

    Too many black people blame the white race for their problems instead of taking their lives in hand and solving their problems.

    Too many Americans consider themselves patriots but make no effort to learn the history of their country.

    Too many childen get away with being disrespectful and disruptive in school.

    Too many people seek happiness in money and status symbols.

    Which of these statements stereotypes a group, all of them, none of them, or just the one which is critical of the right? As I said, I believe these statements. I’m prepared to defend them. They don’t stereotype anyone; they criticize the ideas and behavior of some people in each group—conservatives, liberals, black people, Americans, children and human beings.

    Am I an enemy of any of these groups? Am I an enemy of the human race because I want people to seek happiness where it really exists, an enemy of children because I want them to behave in school, an enemy of Americans because I want them to learn their history, an enemy of black people because I want them to realize their potential, an enemy of liberals because I want them to learn how our economic system works?

    Am I an enemy of conservatism? No. I’ve said elsewhere on this site that I believe conservativism and liberalism are the yin and yang of modern politics. I want conservatism to survive and prosper. I don’t think the conservative party will prosper if it cannot accept and digest a little criticism on questions of race and ethnicity.

    Am I an enemy of individual conservatives and do I want to throw them under the bus? No again. O.S. believes that black people vote for Democrats so they can get a handout or a check and the majority of black peope don’t work or want to work. I know he’s wrong about this. I have nothing against him, and I want he and I to continue to have a civil conversation about it. I want to convince him that he’s wrong, and I believe that if I do conservatism and the Republican Party will be strengthened by having discarded just a little bit of the racial baggage that hurt them in the last election.

    I need to rest now; I’ll address the rest of your points later.

    I want all these groups to survive and prosper.

  • Mike R

    Last line belongs at end of paragraph beginning, “Am I an enemy of these groups….”

  • OBAMA_SUCKS

    I do not believe all african americans want handouts and do not want to work, as I have said numerous times I WAS TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS PREVALENT AROUND WHERE I LIVE!

    I am not some bigot who believes blacks are just leeches of some sort, considering large majorities of whites get handouts as well, all I have said, in these major cities where democrats go to get out the vote the large majority of minorities get some type of handout or aid and the majority vote democrats…WHY?

    Because Republicans will not give them as much as the democrats. It is a genius idea by demos to control these cities and is why they win elections, by keeping the people there and making it harder to move up in class. That is what they do by giving them these things they ultimately suppress these people.

  • Bob

    Obama-Sucks:

    Shhhh! I hear something!It’s nice that you decide to join the discussion the rest of us are having DEFENDING YOU.Seeing that you only added 4 post out of the fifty on this thread for a while there I thought you went AWOL.

    Mike: I see where you’re coming from and I think we both exhausted every thing we need to say on the subject.I enjoyed it but we probably should agree that we disagree.There is no need to address my points any further.Till our next discussion……………….As always wishing you well Bob

  • Bill Hedges

    I said on another article I would stop talking about this RACIST LYNCHING subject
    against Obama_Sucks ON THAT ARTICLE. TIME TO STOP ON ALL ARTICLES.

    Here is to MOVING FORWAED.

    This is a very important aspect we TEA hold. Wanting ALL to enjoy the prosperity our Nation offers. Help those in need. Give hand up not hand out to others.

    First off WAS NOT JUST Clinton’s welfare reform. Many Demos hated it. CONTRACT WITH AMERICA embraced welfare reform (Newt) and contain in our contractual PROMISE to the people :

    “HOUSE
    (7/31/1996)

    Democrat 98

    Republican 230

    SENATE
    (8/1/1996)

    Democrat 25

    Republican 53”

    http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally1996.html

    “The Impact of Welfare Reform”

    “At the time of its enactment, liberal groups passionately denounced the welfare reform legislation, predicting that it would result in substantial increases in poverty, hunger, and other social ills. Contrary to these alarming forecasts, welfare reform has been effective in meeting each of its goals.”

    “Predictions of Social Disaster Due to Welfare Reform”

    “Ten years ago, when the welfare reform legislation was signed into law, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) proclaimed the new law to be “the most brutal act of social policy since Reconstruction.”[1] He predicted, “Those involved will take this disgrace to their graves.”[2]

    “Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund, declared the new reform law an “outrage…that will hurt and impoverish millions of American children.” The reform, she said, “will leave a moral blot on [Clinton’s] presidency and on our nation that will never be forgotten.” [3]

    “The Children’s Defense Fund predicted that the reform law would increase “child poverty nationwide by 12 percent…make children hungrier…[and] reduce the incomes of one-fifth of all families with children in the nation.”[4]

    “The Urban Institute issued a widely cited report predicting that the new law would push 2.6 million people, including 1.1 million children, into poverty. In addition, the study announced that the new law would cause one-tenth of all American families, including 8 million families with children, to lose income.” [5]

    “The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities asserted the new law would increase the number of children who are poor and “make many children who are already poor poorer still…. No piece of legislation in U.S. history has increased the severity of poverty so sharply [as the welfare reform will].” [6]

    “Patricia Ireland, then president of the National Organization for Women, stated that the new welfare law “places 12.8 million people on welfare at risk of sinking further into poverty and homelessness.” [7]

    “Peter Edelman, husband of Marian Wright Edelman and then Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the Department of Health and Human Services, resigned from the Clinton Administration in protest over the signing of the new welfare law. In an article entitled “The Worst Thing Bill Clinton Has Done,” Edelman dubbed the new law “awful” policy that would do “serious injury to American children.” [8]

    “Peter Edelman believed the reform law would not merely throw millions into poverty, but also would actively worsen virtually every existing social problem. “There will be more malnutrition and more crime, increased infant mortality, and increased drug and alcohol abuse,” claimed Edelman. “There will be increased family violence and abuse against children and women.” Moreover, the bill would fail even in the simple task of “effectively” promoting work because “there simply are not enough jobs now.” [9]

    ********** NOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED **********

    “Child poverty has fallen. Although opponents of reform predicted it would increase child poverty, some 1.6 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995.”

    “Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black children. In the quarter century prior to welfare reform, the old welfare system failed to reduce poverty among black children. Since welfare reform, the poverty rate among black children has fallen at an unprecedented rate from 41.5 percent in 1995 to 32.9 percent in 2004.”

    “Unprecedented declines in poverty also occurred among children of single mothers. For a quarter-century before welfare reform, there was little net decline in poverty in this group. Poverty was only slightly lower in 1995 (50.3 percent) than it had been in 1971 (53.1 percent). After the enactment of welfare reform, the poverty rate for children of single mothers fell at a dramatic rate, from 50.3 percent in 1995 to 41.9 percent in 2004.”

    “Welfare caseloads were cut in half. The AFDC/TANF caseload dropped from 4.3 million families at the time PRWORA was enacted to 1.89 million today.”

    “Employment of single mothers has surged. The employment rate of the most disadvantaged single mothers increased from 50 percent to 100 percent.”

    “The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has come to a near standstill. For thirty years prior to welfare reform, the percentage of births that were out-of-wedlock rose steadily by about one percentage point per year.The out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7.7 percent in 1965 when the War on Poverty started; by 1995 it had reached 32.2 percent.Following welfare reform, the long-term rapid growth in out-of-wedlock birth rate ended.Although the rate has continued to inch up slowly, the increase is far slower than in the pre-reform period.”

    “Some attribute these positive trends to the strong economy in the late 1990s. Although a strong economy contributed to some of these trends, most of the positive changes greatly exceed similar trends that occurred in prior economic expansions. The difference this time is welfare reform.”

    http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-impact-of-welfare-reform

    ALL the prediction of welfare reform HORRORS never materialized. Folks came closer to the American dream not life long family tradition of BEING in shackles in welfare slavery…

  • Bill Hedges

    FYI

    In previous comment, in my quote, it says “Some attribute these positive trends to the strong economy in the late 1990s.”

    “Strong economy” occurred AFTER Newt’s tax cuts took effect. Clinton’s tax INCREASE did not live up to expected “simple math” rise in revenue. *** EVERY TAX CUT FOR RICH (20’s, JFK, RR, Newt, & Bush _ before recession) *** increased government revenue. NOT COSTING REVENUE as demos insist…

  • Mike R

    O.S.

    I suspect that white people who live near inner-city ghettos tend to have a worse opinion of black people because they see the worst. I’ve lived in some big cities and in some pretty bad neighborhoods. I’ve worked with ghetto kids. Believe me, I’ve seen the worst too. I’ve seen disdain for honest work, the ‘be slick to get over and get around the rules’ approach to life, the quick resort to violence to solve problems. I never let the fact that these kids had grown up in an atmosphere of hopelessness and fear be an excuse for bad behavior. I held them accountable for everything they did.

    I grew up in the south. When I was a kid, the black people around me weren’t allowed to drink from a public drinking fountain, eat at restaurants or use public restrooms. Their kids had to go to second rate schools with poorly educated teachers and cast off textbooks. They were excluded from trade schools, colleges and universities. They weren’t allowed to vote to change the laws that denied them a chance to get the good things in life. This may seem like a long time ago to you, but to me, and to the black people who lived it, it was just yesterday.

    When you exclude a people from society this way, you force them into an alternate culture. They lose respect for law because they know law isn’t on their side. They learn to survive by hook and crook; many turn to crime and some of the young people learn to admire the criminals because they’re the only ones with money in their pockets. This system lasted for generations and embedded some bad habits into black culture.

    But black people are like everybody else. When you give people a chance, they tend to take it. After the civil rights movement removed the obstacles, black people started to rise. Before the movement there was hardly any black middle class in this country, by the 90’s over 40% of black people had worked their way into the middle and even the upper classes. This number has declined some with the general shrinkage of the middle class.

    Concerning your idea that Democrats and liberals keep black people in ghettos and dependent so they can get their votes, I don’t see it. I think it’s just a case of the road to hell being paved with good intentions. The bleeding-heart wing of liberalism has encouraged dependency by trying to be ‘nice’ to the poor. I’m all for a hard nosed approach. Understand why people have problems, but don’t let the reasons be an excuse for failure.

  • Mike R

    Bob:

    Fair enough. I’m sure we’ll find plenty of other things to disagree on. I’ve enjoyed sparring with you on this one. Best wishes.

  • Bill Hedges

    Promise of welfare check not promise of work skills is bumism…

    Obama wants to rid the Clinton-Newt welfare reform of “work” stipulation. buma doesn’t want those who are able bodied to “sing for their supply”. Keep or develop WORK SKILLS. Better they sit at home watching tv OR WORSE:

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/rEM4NKXK-iA?feature=player_detailpage

    Clinton-Newt welfare reform DID WHAT welfare SHOULD DO:

    “Child poverty has fallen. Although opponents of reform predicted it would increase child poverty, some 1.6 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995.”

    “Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black children. In the quarter century prior to welfare reform, the old welfare system failed to reduce poverty among black children. Since welfare reform, the poverty rate among black children has fallen at an unprecedented rate from 41.5 percent in 1995 to 32.9 percent in 2004.”

    “Unprecedented declines in poverty also occurred among children of single mothers. For a quarter-century before welfare reform, there was little net decline in poverty in this group. Poverty was only slightly lower in 1995 (50.3 percent) than it had been in 1971 (53.1 percent). After the enactment of welfare reform, the poverty rate for children of single mothers fell at a dramatic rate, from 50.3 percent in 1995 to 41.9 percent in 2004.”

    “Welfare caseloads were cut in half. The AFDC/TANF caseload dropped from 4.3 million families at the time PRWORA was enacted to 1.89 million today.”

    “Employment of single mothers has surged. The employment rate of the most disadvantaged single mothers increased from 50 percent to 100 percent.”

    “The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has come to a near standstill. For thirty years prior to welfare reform, the percentage of births that were out-of-wedlock rose steadily by about one percentage point per year.The out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7.7 percent in 1965 when the War on Poverty started; by 1995 it had reached 32.2 percent.Following welfare reform, the long-term rapid growth in out-of-wedlock birth rate ended.Although the rate has continued to inch up slowly, the increase is far slower than in the pre-reform period.”

    “Some attribute these positive trends to the strong economy in the late 1990s. Although a strong economy contributed to some of these trends, most of the positive changes greatly exceed similar trends that occurred in prior economic expansions. The difference this time is welfare reform.”

    http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/the-impact-of-welfare-reform

  • Bill Hedges

    Not “sing for their supply”. Replace with “sing for their supper”…