Challenge Accepted, Sheetwise (What Democrats Believe)

[SammyKid11]

[ QUOTE ]
[Uhh. you are making the same mistake again. Being opposed to Social Security legislation does not mean you want old people starve. It means you don't think the legislation is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

What were the Wall Street Republicans of FDR's era's counter-proposals to Social Security? If they supposedly DID see a need for the government to help the elderly, why did they call Social Security the "lash of the dictator?" Why was their argumentation based around the idea that Social Security-type tax would enslave workers? They didn't just disagree with the specific mechanism, they disagreed with the entire principle...because taxing people to pay for retirees took money out of their system, which was struggling mightily.

Oh, yeah...you condescending bastard...the goal of Social Security (not just the one that I see) is to ensure that the elderly do not grow poor in this country merely because they are unable to work for themselves anymore. It's a safety net to guarantee that they will at least have the basic minimum requirements to live decent, dignified lives. Why don't you, for the FIRST time on this thread, quit touting how smart and learned you are and actually PROVIDE some analysis as to why it's the worst system you could dream up to help keep the elderly out of poverty.

I believe it's YOU who are out of your league, and that is why you've failed to do ANYTHING but belittle what I'm saying without giving one SHRED of justification for why it's wrong. Until you do, I'll be ignoring everything else you have to say.

[warlockjd]

[ QUOTE ]
Uhh. you are making the same mistake again. Being opposed to Social Security legislation does not mean you want old people starve. It means you don't think the legislation is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

This quote reminds me of vegas cabis who consistently tell me that poker players are the worst tippers ever


se la vi

edit: ironically enough, i am not like natedoogg and most of the 2+2ers that are way aboe the 200k annual threshhold.....i find this hillarious yet sad.....



i understand i am a rare breed, even amongst my own

[Non_Comformist]

I hate the democratic party and wish it was dead [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[whiskeytown]

worst rebuttal ever -

I mean it - compared to the original poster this is absolute rubbish - an unpolished dog turd on the grass has more substance then your reply -

RB

[SheetWise]

I didn't realize you were that far gone -- this could take months.

Let's start with Civil Rights. I've gathered some of my notes and will paste together some information to help you.


Civil Rights

Democrats and Republicans were cut from the same cloth until the party split over the slavery issue in 1860. The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party". I've provided a link to PBS, since I imagine you might find some of my other sources suspect. PBS, The Democratic Party..

In 1865 the Democratic party organized an enforcement group known as the KKK whose goal was to murder blacks active in Republican politics, or anyone involved in educating black children. PBS. History of the KKK

Well into the 20th century, the Democratic party carried out it's mission to suppress the black population. In 1931 they passed the Davis-Bacon Act to restrict blacks from entering the construction trades.

From the Congressional Record, we get Representative John Cochran (Democrat - Missouri) "I have received numerous complaints in recent months about southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South"

And, on the House floor, February 28, 1931, Congressman Miles Clayton Allgood (Democrat - Alabama) argued for the Act, stating: "That contractor has cheap colored labor... and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor.. . This bill has merit... [and] it is very important that we enact this measure."

The intent of the law, as demonstrated in the Congressional Record, was to preserve construction jobs for white union men and prevent them from being taken by less expensive black labor. "Davis-Bacon requirements have a negative impact on minority work opportunities." ABC.org, Davis-Bacon

As I'm sure you've read by now, the status quo remained until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Up until this time, Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats.

Civil Rights act of 1964

After years of delays introduced by Democratic Senators, and a Democratic led filibuster going through April and May of 1964, on June 10, 1964, the Senate voted to end the civil rights filibuster. It ended 57 days of debate, the longest debate since the cloture rule had been adopted in 1917. In the end, 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans opposed cloture.

On the final House vote 34 Republicans and 96 Democrats opposed the Bill. The Bill was favored by Republicans 80% -- at a time when Democrats had a easy majority and could have passed the bill without a single Republican vote.

Democrats claim that they are responsible for passing the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because it was Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat, who was president. The bill that actually started the civil rights movement was the Civil Rights Act of 1957, which came during the Eisenhower, Republican, Administration. Then Senate Majority leader, Lyndon B. Johnson, gutted the bill in committee, stripping it of any enforceable criminal provisions.

At the signing of the Civil Rights Act, President Johnson praised the Republicans for their "overwhelming" support.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes. You can browse documents from the period here.

More Recent Developments

There is a long history of efforts to repeal dicriminatory legislation such as the Davis-Bacon Act. In the 104th Congress (1995-1997), repeal legislation was introduced, hearings were held, and legislation was approved by both House and Senate authorizing committees. Unfortunately, the measures were taken out in the Senate as a result of the Byrd Rule (Robert Byrd, Democrat from WV, 1952-2005, KKK 193? - ????).

Legislation was re-introduced in the 105th Congress (1997-1999) and hearings were held to expose cases of fraud and abuse in the Davis-Bacon wage survey process.

At the end of the Clinton Administration, several midnight regulations were issued to expand the Act.

[hurlyburly]

Pretty good spin job. Being able to leverage the oldest political party alive today and the changes within that have come about in the last 200 years sure adds some perceived strength to your argument, but the modern Democratic party is hardly the same as it was pre-1960.

The picture you paint of the Davis-Bacon Act is innacurate, it wasn't introduced to discriminate, it was to protect labor (I'm not arguing for it, just pointing out that using common language of the times didn't necessarily imply racism). After looking at my County/State info, it doesn't "look" discriminatory by CoL standards to me. (ref.)

And let's not forget that before 1964 Strom Thurmond was a Democrat, and he ran a record setting filibuster against the 1957 act and was a vocal opponent of desegregation. He wasn't the only one to make the switch over Civil Rights. (ref.)

I guess using your precedent it's safe to say that all racism left the democratic party in 1964 and became republicans, but that would be unfair and wrong, much like your claims.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Being able to leverage the oldest political party alive today and the changes within that have come about in the last 200 years sure adds some perceived strength to your argument, but the modern Democratic party is hardly the same as it was pre-1960.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mention a 200 year history, but are only willing to defend the last 45? And this, you believe, was the period when the democratic party did a 180?

[ QUOTE ]
After looking at my County/State info, (Davis-Bacon) doesn't "look" discriminatory by CoL standards to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I have to assume you are not trying to "break into" these markets. Price fixing is only discriminatory to people outside the franchise. Read, minorities.

I'm sure I don't understand the rest of your post in the context of my post.

To clarify my position --

The Democrats fought against civil rights for blacks up to and through the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. When it was clear Democrats would lose the fight -- they immediately followed the legislation up with the "Great Society" vision and a "War on Poverty".

Think about this as a rational person. A political party fights civil rights for minorities tooth and nail -- and after losing the battle they immediately declare a "War on Poverty" and pass social welfare programs designed to "help" minorities? The programs they create, despite their stated objective of ending poverty and racial injustice, have a negative effect and generate a cycle of poverty for minorities and institutionalize racial injustice. A coincidence?

Adherence to the principle of parsimony would logically lead us to believe that the Great Society was really a plan to to keep the newly empowered blacks back "on the plantation". It worked beautifully.

It took Republicans over 40 years to undo the chains of slavery Democrats placed on minorities with their "compassion". It came in the form of welfare reform. And just like the Civil Rights act in '64, Democrats (in the form of Bill Clinton) were dragged into it kicking and screaming. And after losing the battle, just like after the Civil Rights act, Democrats claim the credit and moral high ground.

Do you really wonder why consertvatives don't take you seriously?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
It is Democrats who seek limits on the amount of corporate media ownership, seeking to ensure that the public always receives a wide range of opinions not controlled by four or five leviathan corporations.

[/ QUOTE ]

For this argument, I will print parts of an article I wrote for Tarsus Trust in May this year.

Beyond Property Rights

U.S.- A proposal by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) would expand FCC oversight of broadcast content to include XM radio and cable television -- content with a subscriber base, often referred to as narrowcast. You read correctly -- he wants the FCC to censor services that are not broadcast. Services you specifically have to request, and pay for.

In a race to the bottom, the opposition party through Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-New York) proposes reinstating the "Fairness Doctrine", a quaint guideline the FCC admits was always ambiguous, unenforceable, and un-enforced (but it's application was selectively threatened). The doctrine had the singular effect of suppressing the coverage of controversial issues. But, what's in a name ...

Put these two proposals together, and we will have expanded the coverage and the power of the FCC to arbitrarily control the content of all radio and television.

What motivates these people?

The creation of the FRC (forerunner of the FCC) in 1927 was in recognition of the fact that the airwaves belong to the public, and they are a scarce public resource (since there are a limited number of broadcast licenses to be be issued in any area). With this in mind, it was deemed necessary to ensure that broadcasters were worthy of the public trust that accompanied a license.

NEWSFLASH 1) If content is not broadcast, it is not consuming a limited public resource; 2) the resource is not scarce, is is scalable and it is expanding! My cable TV box can display up to 1000 channels, yet only offers about 150. Satellite Radio is an expansion product on top of the existing bandwidth. If there is a shortage, it's a shortage of broadcasters and content -- not of resources to deliver it to consumers.

What's next -- regulation of web based content? Most web content is far more accessible, even to children, than subscription services. Since these proposals would regulate all satellite and cable content on the basis of protecting public resources, why not regulate content of email that has been routed through a satellite or cable provider? How about the ultimate narrowcast, a personal phone call? The only difference between what is being proposed and the examples I'm offering is how many people are listening on the other end.

A note to Sen. Stevens and Rep. Slaughter;

The fact that we both can and do narrowcasting should be your first clue that monitoring the "public trust" of a "limited resource" is a "red herring". The "Fairness Doctrine" was well past any useful life it may have had when it was mercifully allowed to expire in 1987. Why exhume the corpse now? The Free Market works.

With the scalability of services, increased resources, and expanded coverage in all markets, there is no reason to have any different standards for electronic media than those in place for print media. We should be looking for legislation which recognizes that control of content is an increasingly insignificant role for the FCC to perform, not an expanding one. Perhaps we need government sponsored PSA's detailing the function and use of an "off" switch, which we can follow with instructions on how to close a book.

Freedom of speech and market forces are the linchpins of an open society -- which makes these practices and proposals all the more sinister. If the real motivation here is censorship -- and I think it is -- just say so. Then we can start that debate.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
...and so FDR started a small, wildly successful program called Social Security.

[/ QUOTE ]

All Ponzi schemes are "wildly successful" to early "investors".

As natedogg observer earlier;
[ QUOTE ]
Being opposed to Social Security legislation does not mean you want old people starve. It means you don't think the legislation is very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

For an alternative view of Social Security, read the Galveston model. This is not a hypothetical. It is a real, working model that Republicans support.

But of course, a system that worked this well would disempower liberals. It would remove one of the favored weapons from their war chest of political division.

The President has made a bold offer -- if you really believe the current system is better, you're welcome to hitch your wagon to that horse.

[hurlyburly]

"You mention a 200 year history, but are only willing to defend the last 45? And this, you believe, was the period when the democratic party did a 180?"

You know better than this, I can tell you do. Modern conservatism in the Republican party has little resemblance to the Party before 1960. Both parties had liberal and conservative members within their ranks, Barry Goldwater polarized the party and modern conservatism was born.

So regardless of which party they affiliated with, "fat white guys who hate change" have always been the problem.

You're also way off base attacking the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty". (ref.)