NationStates Jolt Archive

This is NOT meant to be an attack on the Democratic Party, but
-Democrats like to think they stand up for the rights of the minority. Well, if Democrats are representing the minority, like they say they are, then doesn't it make sense that they are the minority in the government?

Democrats represent the minority. . .heh heh heh :D

They say they represent the minority and they are the minority in govt. So what is your point? I my book your statement is very logical. Of course they don't want to be minority, who does? Still??

They say they represent the minority and they are the minority in govt. So what is your point? I my book your statement is very logical. Of course they don't want to be minority, who does? Still??
A lot of Democrats have no idea why they are the minority party - just a reality check for them.

Democrats represent the minority. . .heh heh heh :D
*laughs with 31*

This is NOT meant to be an attack on the Democratic Party, but
-Democrats like to think they stand up for the rights of the minority. Well, if Democrats are representing the minority, like they say they are, then doesn't it make sense that they are the minority in the government?

Ah...now they can better identify with their constituency. *snicker* Good one, SP. :)

This is NOT meant to be an attack on the Democratic Party, but
-Democrats like to think they stand up for the rights of the minority. Well, if Democrats are representing the minority, like they say they are, then doesn't it make sense that they are the minority in the government?


You realize that there are more registered democratic voters than there are reepublicans. Get your facts straight. But, many democrats don't vote...

When I was younger I was very idealistic and I quite easily could have become a Democrat. But then I really started looking at what they said and what they had in fact really accomplished. For all their talk of caring about the little guy, they never really, really helped the little guy much. The little guy stayed right where he was and kept voting for Dems. And then it occured to me, since Dems get little guy votes, what possible interest could they have in really helping to make the little guy something bigger.
They win if he stays downtrodden, poor and depressed enough to keep voting for the guys who tell him they care about him and will help him.

That hypocrisy angered me far more than any hypocrisy about moral high ground coming from the Reps.

That hypocrisy angered me far more than any hypocrisy about moral high ground coming from the Reps.

Sometimes it can be a tough call. While I admit the welfare system created under Johnson was a bit unfair, you can't argue with the Civil Rights Act.

A Republican, Lincoln, freed the slaves, but the modern Republican Party hasn't been the Party of Lincoln since Nixon.

It comes down to a choice for me:

A: Cutting social aid to help corporations to form a "trickle down" economy which does not work. Funding a deceptive war. Flip-floppery of the highest calibur when it comes to this week's moral flavor. Creation of a sprawling beaurocracy that oversees every moment of my waking life.

B: Spineless leadership that I could personally topple with a witty article on a blog.

I'm gonna have to go with B. The idea of big government, huge spending, and governmental interference in my life scares me a lot more than some of my tax money going to feed an able bodied family.

Sometimes it can be a tough call. While I admit the welfare system created under Johnson was a bit unfair, you can't argue with the Civil Rights Act.

A Republican, Lincoln, freed the slaves, but the modern Republican Party hasn't been the Party of Lincoln since Nixon.

It comes down to a choice for me:

A: Cutting social aid to help corporations to form a "trickle down" economy which does not work. Funding a deceptive war. Flip-floppery of the highest calibur when it comes to this week's moral flavor. Creation of a sprawling beaurocracy that oversees every moment of my waking life.

B: Spineless leadership that I could personally topple with a witty article on a blog.

I'm gonna have to go with B. The idea of big government, huge spending, and governmental interference in my life scares me a lot more than some of my tax money going to feed an able bodied family.

Spineless leadership? Just look at the Reps in congress now, they are spineless to the nth degree. They have the majority and have yet to really use it in any meaningful way because they are scared to death of losing that majority.
As bloated as the Reps have been making the goverment, the Dems would just be bloating different sectors. I'm from California, a state that has been largely Dem controled since the 70's. Yeah, we have Rep govs but our legislature has remained Dem. We are regulated and controlled and taxed and enviro'd to death. I think both parties are equally good at creating controling governments.
Maybe it really boils down to prefering an Elephant to a Donkey. ;)

Independent party for president! No, I don't mean Nader (that narcisistic bastard...)

You realize that there are more registered democratic voters than there are reepublicans. Get your facts straight. But, many democrats don't vote...

Mark Twain said it best. "There are 3 kinds of lies. Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Registered Democrats dont necessarily vote Democrat, and registered Rebublicans dotn necessarily vote Democrat.

Even if the Democrats have a supposed majority among voters, the Senate and House have Republican majorities, and the president is Republican.

It is not the number of voters, but the control of the government branches, particularly legislative, that give a party power.

As for the Democrats...seems like all they do these days is say the exact opposite of what Republicans say. Independent thinking is vanishing from the Democratic party slowly and surely. Okay...maybe not slowly. :rolleyes:

Maybe it really boils down to prefering an Elephant to a Donkey. ;)

YEAH CUZ THERE ARE NO THIRD PARTIES :D :D :D

For all their talk of caring about the little guy, they never really, really helped the little guy much. The little guy stayed right where he was and kept voting for Dems. And then it occured to me, since Dems get little guy votes, what possible interest could they have in really helping to make the little guy something bigger.
They win if he stays downtrodden, poor and depressed enough to keep voting for the guys who tell him they care about him and will help him.

Its always the same. If a party really and truly means to help the little guy, they vanish as soon as the little guy picks himself up. Just look at the Populist Party back in 1896.

It's just all about trying to get votes, because common-man parties assume (correctly) that if people are in economic trouble, they immediately blame it on the government. Except when there is no freedom of speech. Good old America. :)

This is NOT meant to be an attack on the Democratic Party, but
-Democrats like to think they stand up for the rights of the minority. Well, if Democrats are representing the minority, like they say they are, then doesn't it make sense that they are the minority in the government?

Holy impecable logic Batman!

No wonder those Democrats never win an election!

YEAH CUZ THERE ARE NO THIRD PARTIES :D :D :D

It's true!!! There are only 4th and 5th parties, the 3rd parties were eliminated in 1983!! :D

Maybe it really boils down to prefering an Elephant to a Donkey. ;)

Donkeys are easier to manage. :D

In days past, the rich whites that the Repubs now represent were the minority, they just had a lot of power. Still the Dems represent the common man. The common man just doesn't realize that he's voting for the wrong party these days, that being the Repubs.

Donkeys are easier to manage. :D
But they're such asses. :(

Re: any discussion aboot democrats v. republicans;

Same shit, different stink.

Donkeys are easier to manage. :D

Let me tell you about a donkey named Iron Maiden. A donkey that dragged my friend down a road and across a field. . .the only thing I fear from an elephant is getting my head stuck in his ass. Which is worse i don't know.

Let me tell you about a donkey named Iron Maiden. A donkey that dragged my friend down a road and across a field. . .the only thing I fear from an elephant is getting my head stuck in his ass. Which is worse i don't know.

Check out this guy. He's running for Texas governor next year. He's my new personal hero.

http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/

When elected, he'll be Texas' first independent governor since Sam Houston.

Sometimes it can be a tough call. While I admit the welfare system created under Johnson was a bit unfair, you can't argue with the Civil Rights Act.

A Republican, Lincoln, freed the slaves, but the modern Republican Party hasn't been the Party of Lincoln since Nixon.

It comes down to a choice for me:

A: Cutting social aid to help corporations to form a "trickle down" economy which does not work. Funding a deceptive war. Flip-floppery of the highest calibur when it comes to this week's moral flavor. Creation of a sprawling beaurocracy that oversees every moment of my waking life.

B: Spineless leadership that I could personally topple with a witty article on a blog.

I'm gonna have to go with B. The idea of big government, huge spending, and governmental interference in my life scares me a lot more than some of my tax money going to feed an able bodied family.

response to A: Taxing businesses and rich people excessively CANNOT work because you're taking money away from business that might otherwise be used to pay their employees (hmmm, that's nice, i voted for a democrat, he increased taxes, and i had to be fired...), you're taking money away from the rich who FUND BUSINESSES, and you're generally creating a more bitter climate for entrepreneurs. (I'd much rather enter into a business venture if i knew my business would be taxed 30% instead of 35%, for instance).

so here's how you do it:

LEAVE BUSINESSES ALONE. Let them keep more of their money so that they can spend it on... you know who... the little guy. How does he keep his job? By doing a good job, yes. Also... when his employer has enough money to continue paying him.

The greatest con the democrats ever pulled was convincing the little guy that they could help him by bringing down the rich and big businesses. That is total horseshit.

Still the Dems represent the common man. The common man just doesn't realize that he's voting for the wrong party these days, that being the Repubs.

I live among many common folk and am one myself and the consensus seems to be that people want the government to climb down off their balls and let them be, something neither party is willing to do beyond token gestures.

Check out this guy. He's running for Texas governor next year. He's my new personal hero.

http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/

When elected, he'll be Texas' first independent governor since Sam Houston.

If I was Texan he would have my vote, Kinky, heh heh.

Something that really can help the little guy is to buy American products... every time you see a BMW or a Mercedes (etc.) rolling down the street, that car represents a loss of thousands of dollars for America's trade balance.

I live among many common folk and am one myself and the consensus seems to be that people want the government to climb down off their balls and let them be, something neither party is willing to do beyond token gestures.
Hence the, yknow, libertarian movement.

Conservatism: as little government control and responsibility as possible.

Nice. Would it be off-topic to mention that the Republican party is the more conservative party by far?

Did you also know that comparitively, America is one of the most conservative countries in the world?

Interesting to note that we have one of the best economies in the world as well.

If I was Texan he would have my vote, Kinky, heh heh.

So will they name a town after him? hehe

Kinky, Texas.

lol

response to A: Taxing businesses and rich people excessively CANNOT work because you're taking money away from business that might otherwise be used to pay their employees (hmmm, that's nice, i voted for a democrat, he increased taxes, and i had to be fired...), you're taking money away from the rich who FUND BUSINESSES, and you're generally creating a more bitter climate for entrepreneurs. (I'd much rather enter into a business venture if i knew my business would be taxed 30% instead of 35%, for instance).

BUHAWAWAWAWAWAWAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

OMG!

Oh man you're so ignorant ...

Wait ... wait ... I'm not done holding my sides ...

HAWHAWHAWHAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHWAHAHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, man ... I can't wait to share this gem with the others.

So will they name a town after him? hehe

Kinky, Texas.

lol

You are now entering Kinky, pop. 69
Leather Capital of the World!

If I was Texan he would have my vote, Kinky, heh heh.

I love his campaign slogans:

"Why the hell not?"

and

"How hard could it be?" (This one is a slam against Gov. GW Bush)

You are now entering Kinky, pop. 69
Leather Capital of the World!

"My friend went to Kinky, Texas and all I got were these assless chaps"

I love his campaign slogans:

"Why the hell not?"

and

"How hard could it be?" (This one is a slam against Gov. GW Bush)

His victory would be sweet.

Conservatism: as little government control and responsibility as possible.

Nice. Would it be off-topic to mention that the Republican party is the more conservative party by far?

Did you also know that comparitively, America is one of the most conservative countries in the world?

Interesting to note that we have one of the best economies in the world as well.

Our entrepreneurial spirit is due in part to fairly low taxes (compared to most developed countries) which keeps more money free for business ventures...

our high productivity is a product of a great (general) work ethic... we don't take 40 days off every year. we work (generally) 40 hours per week.

heck, even the tax rates under Clinton were modest by Western World standards.

we basically believe (even democrats... although they want to tax us a bit more to fund an increased welfare state) that the less you tax, the better off business will be... and if business is successsful, it will lead to increased jobs and job security.

Donkeys are easier to manage. :D

And actually more useful.

I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I think they are both corrupt. However, I do believe the Republicans are more corrupt and I do believe the Democrats try harder to stay out of our personal lives/bodies/etc..

"My friend went to Kinky, Texas and all I got were these assless chaps"

This is the first post that I have heartely laughed with in a long time. That was beautiful. I want that t-shirt.

And actually more useful.

I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I think they are both corrupt. However, I do believe the Republicans are more corrupt and I do believe the Democrats try harder to stay out of our personal lives/bodies/etc..

...just not our wallets or gun cabinets. hehe

Conservatism: as little government control and responsibility as possible.

Nice. Would it be off-topic to mention that the Republican party is the more conservative party by far?

Did you also know that comparitively, America is one of the most conservative countries in the world?

Interesting to note that we have one of the best economies in the world as well.
Not for long...*cough*PRESIDENTBUSH*cough*

response to A: Taxing businesses and rich people excessively CANNOT work because you're taking money away from business that might otherwise be used to pay their employees (hmmm, that's nice, i voted for a democrat, he increased taxes, and i had to be fired...), you're taking money away from the rich who FUND BUSINESSES, and you're generally creating a more bitter climate for entrepreneurs. (I'd much rather enter into a business venture if i knew my business would be taxed 30% instead of 35%, for instance).

so here's how you do it:

LEAVE BUSINESSES ALONE. Let them keep more of their money so that they can spend it on... you know who... the little guy. How does he keep his job? By doing a good job, yes. Also... when his employer has enough money to continue paying him.

The greatest con the democrats ever pulled was convincing the little guy that they could help him by bringing down the rich and big businesses. That is total horseshit.


You're 100% correct. The little guy wins in this situation, as does the business. I'm sure that "little guy" in India or China is very, very grateful! :rolleyes:

well our taxes are still low... we're still rebuilding our military after the downsizing of the Clinton years (people seem to forget that... we wouldn't be spending so much on it now had he at least just kept things at the same level or roughly so). though, honestly, it'd be nice to get a balanced budget. (hard to do with all the pork clinging to every bill).

so it's up to us to drive our economy. it always has been about business, consumers and investors in the US... because our government does not run a command economy...

somewhere some genius is coming up with the next booming industry... hopefully he'll take on that risk and give our economy something new to rally around.

You're 100% correct. The little guy wins in this situation, as does the business. I'm sure that "little guy" in India or China is very, very grateful! :rolleyes:

well how do you fix that? our labor is EXPENSIVE.

higher taxes sure as hell won't help businesses.

I think the idea of the democratic party is that minorities will outnumber the majority.

Take African Americans plus Hispanics plus Asains plus homosexuals and that should be more then the middle class american, not to mention that the majority of women vote democrat and women are a majority in USA

the problem with this idea however is that not all of these people actually vote. Some are disenfranchised well others are just fed up with both parties

Old people and christains however love to vote

well our taxes are still low... we're still rebuilding our military after the downsizing of the Clinton years (people seem to forget that... we wouldn't be spending so much on it now had he at least just kept things at the same level or roughly so). though, honestly, it'd be nice to get a balanced budget. (hard to do with all the pork clinging to every bill).

so it's up to us to drive our economy. it always has been about business, consumers and investors in the US... because our government does not run a command economy...

somewhere some genius is coming up with the next booming industry... hopefully he'll take on that risk and give our economy something new to rally around.

Listen, if your theory was being practiced that would be one thing and I'd agree a good thing. That is what they want you to believe you hear it so many times you start to believe it. But in the real world that's not what happens. Business gets tax breaks and they out-source our jobs to cheap foreign labor markets in India and China and the bottom line goes up! Business just keeps getting richer and the decline of the middle class will be complete in about another 20-30 years. We owe so much money to China who is buying up most of our debt that they will be able to dictate terms to us at whim if this trend keeps going. Oh and lets not even get into our trade deficits, that alone is going to bring us down if we don't get it under control. Despite what people may believe, money doesn't grow on trees and when we are importing more than we are exporting just how long in a global market do you think we are going to be the big fish in the pond?

money doesn't grow on trees and when we are importing more than we are exporting just how long in a global market do you think we are going to be the big fish in the pond?

He's right there is no way that we can continue to be the lone world superpower forever because when you look at history superpower's always fade for some reason or another or else Rome would still rule all of Europe so while now we maybe a superpower in another 40-50 years we will just be another major player on the world stage with a veto in the u.n. like France or Britain.
Talking about Britain they were just the last global superpower "The sun never sets on the British Empire" and look at them now a U.S. puppet it could happen to us to.

Conservatism: as little government control and responsibility as possible.

Nice. Would it be off-topic to mention that the Republican party is the more conservative party by far?

Did you also know that comparitively, America is one of the most conservative countries in the world?

Interesting to note that we have one of the best economies in the world as well.

Yes government should only build prisons and enforce the laws rich people like and pay police to lock up the proletariat when they get out of line. Sorry dickhead, but mind control is at the top of my list of things small unobtrusive governments don't do, and telling me what state of mind I am allowed to be in and how i'm allowd to get there is mind controll and i've heard little that is more Orwellian than the 'liberal' stance that if i'm some fucked up addict I should get treatment, but if I'm just a harmless recreational user I deserve punishment. Furthermore you fuking conservatives just want a governmant that will do whatever bussiness wants and enforce all kinds of made up "property". Corparations can 'own' public airwaves and we shouldn't infringe the free speech of a nonhuman entity, but we should throw pirate broadcasters in prison? We can extend the length of copyright everytime mickey mouse comes close to public domain, we can lay claim to genes isolated from other peoples bodies, pollute the air other people breathe and the water they drink, we can put two million fucking people in prison, we can use Canada as a giant human shield for missile defence, we can hire cops to give me shit and lie in court, we can buy cops psychiatric treatment to help them overcome the trauma of killing the wrong ******, we can be moraly outraged at the 'gonocide' of the unborn while funding the genocide in Darfur, but TAXES! why that's fucking tyrany! I'm so fucking tired of this 'small government' horse shit and if find it hard to believe 'consevatives' can be that fucking blind without trying.

Yes government should only build prisons and enforce the laws rich people like and pay police to lock up the proletariat when they get out of line. Sorry dickhead, but mind control is at the top of my list of things small unobtrusive governments don't do, and telling me what state of mind I am allowed to be in and how i'm allowd to get there is mind controll and i've heard little that is more Orwellian than the 'liberal' stance that if i'm some fucked up addict I should get treatment, but if I'm just a harmless recreational user I deserve punishment. Furthermore you fuking conservatives just want a governmant that will do whatever bussiness wants and enforce all kinds of made up "property". Corparations can 'own' public airwaves and we shouldn't infringe the free speech of a nonhuman entity, but we should throw pirate broadcasters in prison? We can extend the length of copyright everytime mickey mouse comes close to public domain, we can lay claim to genes isolated from other peoples bodies, pollute the air other people breathe and the water they drink, we can put two million fucking people in prison, we can use Canada as a giant human shield for missile defence, we can hire cops to give me shit and lie in court, we can buy cops psychiatric treatment to help them overcome the trauma of killing the wrong ******, we can be moraly outraged at the 'gonocide' of the unborn while funding the genocide in Darfur, but TAXES! why that's fucking tyrany! I'm so fucking tired of this 'small government' horse shit and if find it hard to believe 'consevatives' can be that fucking blind without trying.


?

Sorry dickhead, but mind control is at the top of my list of things small unobtrusive governments don't do

Uh oh! He used "dickhead". You KNOW he made good points.

You realize that there are more registered democratic voters than there are reepublicans. Get your facts straight. But, many democrats don't vote...

And many registered Democrats vote Republican. Look at the Florida panhandle as an example.

Sometimes it can be a tough call. While I admit the welfare system created under Johnson was a bit unfair, you can't argue with the Civil Rights Act.

A Republican, Lincoln, freed the slaves, but the modern Republican Party hasn't been the Party of Lincoln since Nixon.

.

My history is weak, so correct if I am wrong, but wasnt it Republicans who voted for the civil rights act and the Democrats(Dixiecrats) who voted against it?

Yeah, all the Dixiecrats voted against it, and later changed parties. Don't pretend that Strom Thurmond was never a republican.

And if you think that no regulation in businesses is good for the environment, I'd just like to point out a segment of American history from about 1900-1935, when business was unregulated. Most people don't consider the wages then to be anything over "miserable", and it's a wonder why people even bothered to work, because with the shitty conditions and the horrible pay, there wasn't much of a point.

Furthermore, the lack of regulation is what CAUSED the great depression (both in the stock market and in the form of 'trickle down economics'), and policies that were largely taken from the socialist platform were what caused us to recover so quickly.

Sure, you can say that Democrats shit on the minorities, but neither party is really interested in a minority of voters, the only thing that differs is the way that each tries to convince them that they are.

Uh oh! He used "dickhead". You KNOW he made good points.

I graciously concede my argument to his superior insulting skills... :rolleyes:

Ok, so corruption becomes the issue. With the human race, there will always be corruption. Ok, fine. Answer me this then:

What would you rather:

A. Corruption in a few small businesses?

B. Corruption in an all-powerful all-controlling government?

I'd take A any day.

Government should protect ensure peace, engage in diplomacy, and above all, protect safety and individual rights.

Welfare and other social issues are best handled by private non-profit organizations and charities. That way the government doesn't have to do so much micromanaging, and instead of tax dollars being wasted on exploitations and loopholes in welfare systems, people can donate willingly and the money can be used regionally and more effectively.

Furthermore, the lack of regulation is what CAUSED the great depression (both in the stock market and in the form of 'trickle down economics'), and policies that were largely taken from the socialist platform were what caused us to recover so quickly.

Um...wrong. WW2 got us out of the depression. Production spike=good conditions. Simple economics.

As for Roosevelt...his policies were some of the most regulatory and socialist in American history. Yes, they were meant to impose regulation after the stock market crash.

However, if you look at conditions, there is substantial evidence that FDR's policies actually prolonged the Depression.

We owe the recovery to World War 2, not to FDR. (Except in the fact that FDR knew about the bombing at Pearl Harbor far in advance and let it happen. You could make the argument that he enticed the nation into war illegally to end the Depression. In that case, I guess we do need to praise FDR. :rolleyes: )

I'm not even going to argue with you about some conspiracy theory. All I'm going to say is that Roosevelt had no way of informing Pearl Harbor of an impending attack.

Considering the depression was nearing an end towards the late 30s when WW2 didn't start for America until 1941, it's a stretch to say that the war ended the depression. Also, there was a similar production spike in the 1910s, when America was involved with WW1, this didn't cause America to avoid a small depression coming out of it. FDR's plans also created any hope for some states to develop, such as Tennessee, which would be SOL without the TVA.

In any case, a continuation of Hoover's policies of Trickle down economics would have been disastrous, causing the gap between rich and poor to widen even more. You can even see effects of the Bush tax cut beginning to form now, the rich are statistically getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Maybe you don't care that the poor get shat on, but it's never, throughout history, been good to increase the wealth divide between rich and poor.

Democrats irritate me. Perhaps the most irritating thing about them, at present, is the fact that I now abhor them far less than I abhor the current incarnation of the Repulican Party.

I'm all for minority rights I guess, but no moreso than I'm for everyone's rights. Democrats and other assorted liberals seem to want to throw up more walls between our already very differentiated racial egomass, and in most cases it serves little purpose other than pissing off the rest of us . I also have some serious problems with their ceaseless idealism and the support of various programs like Social Security and Welfare.

Liberalism is like the [i]Hotel California of political ideologies. It's overrated, overused, and gets more irritating the more I hear about it.

*shrug* It comes down to 2 main goals, lately. Big government? Or small government? We know who is on what side, though those Republicans need to do what we put them in office to do. I'm learning in econ that the government frustrates the market to no end, pushing up prices on everything (that or causing shortages, like the ingenious rent ceilings). Its also ironic that the government is a breaker of monopolies, yet is the biggest monopoly in existence: there is no competition, it doesn't care where its prices are and can enforce all prices it sets for its service (price = tax). A 45k page tax code also shoots up the cost of enforcing such ridiculousness. I'd write a 1-page tax code, thanks. Maybe use size 10 font to fit a little extra in there.

I liked the statement about a dissappearing middle class. Given that America's production is being taken over by the services industry (and that shows little sign of slowing), you have to think of who provides services. It certainly isn't a few rich guys going around and doing everything :> .

Ah well, time will tell. I wish the government didn't give itself so much leeway to gather more and more power. We're going to end up like those european countries that have so much redistribution of wealth to do, but punish those who create the wealth! Humanity isn't at the point where we can think about redistributing everything yet. Even Bill Gate's value split among all Americans is but a few hundred bucks each, not even enough for a month's rent. Wealth must be created first, and then it DOES spread around, one way or another.

And about Democrats... well, they've lost the American people. Minorities are starting to realize that modern dems don't care about anything but taking steps toward socialism. After all, keeping people poor means more votes for Dems, and the whole trying to allow felons to vote is a pretty stark picture of desperation for votes. Studies show that the better off someone is, the more likely they are to vote Republican. So raise taxes, make it hard for someone to reach the level of comfortability that they want to vote Republican. Its quite simple.

I'm not even going to argue with you about some conspiracy theory. All I'm going to say is that Roosevelt had no way of informing Pearl Harbor of an impending attack.

If you REALLY don't want to argue it, I'll leave this one alone, but I'd be glad to show you some considerable evidence via PM or another thread.

Considering the depression was nearing an end towards the late 30s when WW2 didn't start for America until 1941, it's a stretch to say that the war ended the depression.

Not true. Obviouslly, the war started much earlier for the rest of Europe, around 1936 at Hitler's violation of the Versailles treaty. France and Britain began to build up. After the invasion of Poland in 1939, war was declared.

Now, America's economy was involved in the war long before its military was. First we had the Neutrality acts of 1936 that stated we would offer no aid to warring countries on either side. However, this was overshadowed by the hidden "cash and carry" policy. So beginning around 1936, our economy began to be involved in the war. Later, in 1940, the "lend-lease" policy offered even more provision to lend aid to the Allies. Our own military involvement came long after our economic involvement.

If you look at an unemployment chart of this time period, you will notice that unemployment was at its peak around 1934, near 40%. Following Roosevelt's New Deal was a decrease to about 30%, which was shortly followed by a recession that lasted until 1940, after which the unemployment dropped to 8% by 1942 and continued to slowly drop after.

So, about a year before we declared war on Germany, about the same time we started lending aid to Britain, the unemployment dropped by 25%. Hmm.

Also, there was a similar production spike in the 1910s, when America was involved with WW1, this didn't cause America to avoid a small depression coming out of it. FDR's plans also created any hope for some states to develop, such as Tennessee, which would be SOL without the TVA.

While the TVA program in Tennessee made some progress, the area still remained the most impoverished in the nation. More importantly, the NRA couldn't solve the racial and social issues underlying. The TVA certainly helped, but is not solely responsible for Tennessee's uplifiting.


In any case, a continuation of Hoover's policies of Trickle down economics would have been disastrous, causing the gap between rich and poor to widen even more.

I certainly won't argue that Hoover's policies weren't short-sighted. However, he actually raised taxes and increased spending, which, by your logic, should have diminished this gap. More was due to circumstance than Hoover. The poor couldn't absorb the collapse of the bank. Some of the rich and middle class could. Simply fact.

You can even see effects of the Bush tax cut beginning to form now, the rich are statistically getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Maybe you don't care that the poor get shat on, but it's never, throughout history, been good to increase the wealth divide between rich and poor.

Tax cuts leave more money open to middle and upper class employers which should open more jobs for the poor and unemployed. How does this make the poor poorer?

Tax cuts leave more money open to middle and upper class employers which should open more jobs for the poor and unemployed. How does this make the poor poorer?

In theory yes. However, with the globalization of the economy that no longer plays out(disclaimer: don't mean all employers).

Our companies "upper class" managment liked the cuts and they created new jobs. Two in the US and fifty in India.

I don't know. For some reason it seems like we give them dollars and "trickle down" gives the rest pennies.

You realize that there are more registered democratic voters than there are reepublicans. Get your facts straight. But, many democrats don't vote...
The correct statement is, many registered democrats don't vote democrat, at least not in the last election.

you can't argue with the Civil Rights Act.
Which one senator Kleagle Byrd, scion of the Democrats, filibustered in an attempt to stop it.

the rich are statistically getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.
But only in relation to the rich.

My history is weak, so correct if I am wrong, but wasnt it Republicans who voted for the civil rights act and the Democrats(Dixiecrats) who voted against it?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 caused splits in both parties. A majority of both parties voted for the bill in the House and Senate.

It was introduced and supported by President Johnson.

But the Republican Minority Leader of the Senate was the key backer of the bill.

Senator Barry Goldwater vehemently opposed the bill and made it a major campaign issue when he ran against Johnson.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964):, vote totals:

The Original House Version: 290-130
The Senate Version: 73-27
The Senate Version, as voted on by the House: 289-126
By Party: The Original House Version:

Democratic Party: 153-96
Republican Party: 138-34
The Senate Version:

Democratic Party: 46-22
Republican Party: 27-6
The Senate Version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91
Republican Party: 136-35
By Party and Region:

The Original House Version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10
Northern Democrats: 145-9
Northern Republicans: 138-24

The Senate Version:

Southern Democrats: 1-21
Southern Republicans: 0-1
Northern Democrats: 46-1
Northern Republicans: 27-5

Thank you, Cat. *tips hat*