I often switch the radio to hear other types of music and what the DJs have to say. If you want to hear racism, bias, bigotry, etc. there's no need to listen to Rush, just listen to the Hip Hop station in New Orleans. Try listening on "Why Come Wednesday" when people call in and ask "Why Come" questions. I don't care how you vote and don't believe you'll EVER change your voting preference no matter what either party says or does. That's why I said the Democrats have certain groups in their back pocket. You will ALWAYS see things the way you want to see them and not how they actually are. That's it...plain and simple. You're not alone and as a result the Democrats USE you even they you refuse to admit it. You don't have to conform to what I or anyone thinks is the best idea. Just don't tell me that I refuse to try to understand who you are then pretend you know exactly who I am. That's BS!
How about fiscal responsibility for starters? It can be argued that we needed the "stimulus" spending to thwart a severe recession or depression. Although, I think a better stimulus bill would be heavier on tax cuts (particularly immediate payroll tax cuts for the middle class) and consist of less spending. However, this news article also refers to long range deficit projections by the CBO. Factor out the "stimulus" spending and you are still left with massive deficits for the long term without any indication of improvement. You say give Obama a chance. Well, the CBO can see his blueprint now and is predicting dire consequences. If an engineer designs a faulty blueprint for a bridge would you say it's too soon to judge the engineer-let the bridge be built? Honestly, what do you think of Obama's blueprint thus far? Government spending is out of control and there is absolutely no signs that Obama is willing to tackle the problem. No signs of him willing do anything about entitlement programs. His blueprint offers more massive spending and new massive government programs. You don't seem to be concerned with future spending projections yet you proclaim to be for proper balance. You think taxes will have to go up so I can only conclude that you're more concerned about increasing government revenue and less concerned about decreasing spending.
I got the impression you listed slavery being lifted by a republican to show how progressive the republican party is in perception and reality today. While I think republicans are better than many think, comparing to them Lincoln's day may be a stretch. Truth is that the republicans of that time resemble very little to the republicans of today. Besides the socially progressive idea of freeing the slaves, they were the carpet baggers, and the few blacks elected around that time, did so under the auspices of the republican party. Now I don't think the republican party today can be labeled as exclusionary, having been responsible for appointing blacks in significant cabinet posts, and the current head of the RNC is black also. But it cannot be denied that racism existed at a more overt level years ago, and republicans have long been viewed as the party of white men. Many white democrats fled their party during the civil rights movement. So it usually comes as a surprise to meet a black person who proclaims conservatism/republican roots. It probably persists for many of the reasons that mastermind listed. Social programs for underprivileged has never been a platform of republicans. If a large number of blacks are still convinced that greater social assistance is needed, it is only natural that they should not trust the republican party that votes against these measures.
So those quotes by Limbaugh arent bad to you? You dismiss that and bring up an obscure radio station in New Orleans, good diversion. When did I pretend I knew you? That made no sense at all. And you will see things the way you want to see them. Thats obvious from your post. The way things actually are is your viewpoint, so dont tell me the way I see things. Thats hypocrisy at best. Nobody has used me, your judgement leads you to stereotype me as you just did in your post, but Im really not surprised by your response. More of the same. You act as if all of a sudden minorites just woke up one day and said we are going to accuse white people of being racist and blame everything on them. Forget the facts of history in this country. Yep thats what happened. You win, you are always right when it comes to race. Btw, im done talking about this before it becomes something it shouldnt get to. Apparently, you know how all minorities think and act, blacks, hispanics, and other. Including me, so your logic and knowledge are so much more superior, being that you are always right on race discussions.
That makes good sense on the surface, but all of the "experts" seem to think this one has the potential to get out of control. Who is to know if 18 months will get it done? Still, aiming for a limited project rather than an indefinite one seems pragmatic to me.
Red I am bit confused by your tone on this. Spending got us in trouble, so to counter that we spend more? I just don't get it.
what about the god of the republican party Ronald Reagan and his anti drug laws involving crack cocaine and powder cocaine. For powder cocaine, a conviction of possession with intent to distribute carries a five year sentence for quantities of 500 grams or more. But for crack, a conviction of possession with intent to distribute carries a five year sentence for only 5 grams. This is a 100:1 quantity ratio. Under this format, a dealer charged with trafficking 400 grams of powder, worth approximately $40,000, could receive a shorter sentence than a user he supplied with crack valued at $500. now tell me that isnt racially motivated. because it was well known that crack in the 80's was more prevalent in the black community than it was in the white community, and powder cocaine was a upper class white drug, and we cant just go locking up all the businessmen on wall street fueling our economy can we.
There are such tax cuts in the budget, but the notion of tax cuts as a cure-all has been completely discredited in the last 8 years. Well he hasn't solved the buggest economic crisis since the Depression in 40 days. Who would imagine that he could? This is going to take some time. The CBO offers the worst possible scenario as to what could happen, but it's still just a projection. The real question is . . . will it work to revitalize the economy? If so, it may turn out to be money well spent--offering a long-term solution to US structural problems. THEN the debt can be addressed. As Obama put it, the proposals "are a central part of a comprehensive strategy to grow this economy by attacking the very problems that have dragged it down for too long: the high cost of healthcare and our dependence on foreign oil; our education deficit and our fiscal deficit." We cannot shy away from the magnitude of problems we were facing. You haven't paid attention to my statement over the years if you conclude that. Everybody has agreed that spending must be cut. I said that taxes must be raised as well because the system cannot survive the spending cuts that it would take to balance the budget otherwise. So we keep on borrowing. Borrowing money is a total waste. Either taxes have to be raised to pay for the costs of government or government has to be slashed to the total of the tax income. Since neither of these is a viable solution, some balance between them must be achieved. Democrats can be rightly criticized for "tax-and-spend" policies, but the republican "spend-and borrow" policies are far worse and make no attempt to pay-as-we-go. If state governments, private industry, you or I were to spend more than our income, we would go broke. Ultimately the federal government is no different, they just have the ability to postpone the inevitable. We can only hope they use this time to get the economy back on track so that we can then address the national debt from a position of economic strength.
Clearly. You are confusing two issues. Spending is what got us into deficit trouble because taxes were cut by Bush without corresponding spending cuts. It never made any sense at all. That's one issue-- the national debt. Now, we have in the last 6 months suffered a major, major economic crisis where the economy is lagging and no one is spending, people are getting laid off and companies are going under. Spending is the only way to get out of this and the government is the only body that is able to get it done at this scale. Yes, solving one problem exacerbates the other, but the economy has priority, as should be obvious to everyone. The deficit cannot be fixed quickly and doesn't have to be, it will take a long time to do it anyway. But the economy must be addressed quickly or the consequences would be dire. We need a strong economy to even consider paying down the debt.
An argument could be made that the motivation was violence. The crack dealers and their clientele were far more prone to extremely violent disagreements with assault rifles and Uzi's than the laid-back cocaine crowd. Violence that was shattering neighborhoods not involved with the trade.
