sabro said:
Like Zell Miller, most politicians are opportunistic scavengers who tend to be where the meat is ripest. He swung around so fast on the Bush platform that Kerry was impressed. Southern democrats in the 20th century seemed to have reflected the majority of their constituency. Some like Ronald Reagan and former White Supremacist Strum Thurmond, just changed parties.
Since Zell Miller is not running for any politcal office (he could've been reelected easily, but decided to retire), how is he an opportunist? By definition, opportunists are looking to GAIN something, and Miller has gained nothing. And if he swung around, then where are the pictures of him taking part in anti-war rallies? No, he's always had the same position. You really need to read his book, "National Party No More". It echoes a lot of the same reasons that Reagan had felt the Democratic party had left him too.
sabro said:
Neither party has remained consistent in the last hundred years on any one issue. I don't think the current GOP platform would reflect the views of Lincoln or Roosevelt. (Or even Nixon) but I also don't think that the Democrat's platform would impress FDR or Kennedy.
Actually, G.W. Bush is more of a moderate (there, I said it), like Nixon, than he is a "Goldwater-Republican" like Reagan (like me).
sabro said:
The GOP began in part as a xenophobic anti-catholic party. Lincoln did a great thing as it's first national candidate in distancing it from the "Native American" and "No-Nothing" roots. Ending slavery was a liberal idea. Keeping things as they were would have been a conservative idea.
WOW! That's the first time I've ever heard that! Have any evidence? Because that sounds a lot like wishful thinking. Even if it was a Liberal idea, it was still the Republicans who go it done. Or was Licoln an opportunistic scavenger?
sabro said:
Welfare was effective in getting kids out of orphanages and supporting single mothers in raising their own children. Welfare reform pushed many of these marginal families out into the street. So much for that success.
Welfare ballooned into a program that paid women to get pregnant while staying single. Any effort to make legitimate income (job) or reporting any gifts of money from other sources were met with a severe reduction of benefits. In welfare neighborhoods, it was not uncommon to see women with eight kids by six different fathers. You think I'm making this up? You should hang out with some of the people whose business is looking after them. A friend of mine is a criminal defense attorney, and many of his clients are on welfare. It's scary that a part of society has their values. But they can afford to, because we're supporting them.
Welfare reform was planned to get people off of welfare and back into supporting themselves by working. If it had been such a failure, then where is the back-to-back coverage by CNN, CBS, NPR and others? Granted, it would work better if we reformed the INS and stopped the hemmoraging of our borders....
sabro said:
Head Start was supposed to raise the IQ's of deprived inner city children. That goal failed. But kids attending head start graduated from high school in far high numbers, went on to college and generally got better paying jobs later on. I would count it a success.
I think the GI bill was a success. I like the Pell Grant program and GSL programs.
The GI bill, Pell Grant program (which helped me last year) are working well. I'll give ye that one, laddie. I'm not familiar with the GSL program. What is that?
sabro said:
I don't think there is such a thing as a conservative spending program. "Government should stay out of our business." doesn't really cost anything.
*ahem* Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines? Okay, we're not big on social programs. But we haven't ended any either. Believe me, the NEA (Nat'l Endowment of the Arts) and others would've been long gone.
sabro said:
The creation of wealth and income redistribution are issues best debated by economists. I have an opinion, but it is a HS social science teacher's opinion... so I'd have to work out the specifics: Minimum wage was a wealth redistribution. It created wealth by creating jobs that paid enough to buy with and created consumers. Labor creates wealth also. Rich people getting richer tends to create poverty.
Well I'm an engineer, not an economist. But if I may be so indulgent as to tell you a little story.... Remember the "Luxury Tax"? Any car, boat or airplane selling for more than $30,000 had an extra tax burden added for the buyer to pay. I was making my living as a factory Porsche technician. A mechanic at the dealership, in other words. Why Porsche instead of Ford? Mainly because of my racing background, and also my ability to work at a level expected by high-line dealerships and their customers. Porsches went for $45,000 to $100,00 in those days. So when the luxury tax (Envy Tax is what I called it) went into effect, guess what happened? People stopped buying Porsches. Sales plunged so drastically that it even hurt Porsche back in Germany. Mechanics lost their jobs, dealerships closed (which affected salesmen, secretaries and car washers) and as bad as it was, it was nothing compared to what the boat and aviation industry went through. They lost whole manufacturers. Rich people aren't self-sufficient; they support a lot of cooks, maids, mechanics, pilots and candlestick makers.
I would like to take a moment to point out that Porsche is a two-syllable word.
Keeping the minimum wage in line with inflation increases is one thing, but hiking the rate to get votes creates inflation and unemployment. [
See: Carter administration.]
sabro said:
Civil rights is and remains a liberal issue by definition. That so many (mostly northern) republicans supported it speaks for a party that even under Nixon supported liberal social policies. Southern Democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act. So I should thank the GOP for all the good liberal programs that have shaped our society and blame the democrats for all the bad liberal programs that create problems in our society?
Yes, you should.