In civil rights history, what happened to the democrats and republicans?

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: JS80

Even with increases in [justified] military spending, Reagan always proposed a balanced budget...which the Democratically controlled Congress rejected and fvcked up and added social crap.

Nope, not even close to true.

There were deficits because he cut taxes...doesn't make him not fiscally conservative. Major increases in spending was military...ex-military, he's considered "fiscally conservative."

Reagan's legacy was deconstruction of New Deal ( :roll: ) and Great Society ( :roll: ) which it seems like W Bush is bringing back, hence has such a low approval rating from his own party.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: JS80
Even with increases in [justified] military spending, Reagan always proposed a balanced budget...which the Democratically controlled Congress rejected and fvcked up and added social crap.

The president has final say. Sign the budget or don't. Clinton sent them back to congress. Reagan signed them. Top 10 highest federal outlays as % of GDP from 1948 to today:

1) 1983: 23.5%
2) 1982: 23.1%
3) 1985: 22.9%
4) 1986: 22.4%
5) 1991: 22.3%
6) 1981: 22.2%
7) 1984: 22.2%
8) 1992: 22.1%
9) 1990: 21.8%
10) 1980: 21.7%

Hmm, Reagan presided over and signed 6 of the top 10 spending years since the Dixiecrat switch. Considering Reagan was only in office 8 years, that is a remarkable feat.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: JS80

Even with increases in [justified] military spending, Reagan always proposed a balanced budget...which the Democratically controlled Congress rejected and fvcked up and added social crap.

Nope, not even close to true.

Reagan's 1981 income tax cuts, the largest in American history, were passed with bipartisan support by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate. Reagan's support for an increased defense budget also was supported by Congressional Democrats. These Democrats, however, were not so willing to go along with Reagan's proposed cuts in domestic programs. The resulting increase of the national budget deficit led Reagan and Congress to approve tax increases in 1982 and 1983.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: JS80

Even with increases in [justified] military spending, Reagan always proposed a balanced budget...which the Democratically controlled Congress rejected and fvcked up and added social crap.

Nope, not even close to true.

Reagan's 1981 income tax cuts, the largest in American history, were passed with bipartisan support by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate. Reagan's support for an increased defense budget also was supported by Congressional Democrats. These Democrats, however, were not so willing to go along with Reagan's proposed cuts in domestic programs. The resulting increase of the national budget deficit led Reagan and Congress to approve tax increases in 1982 and 1983.

This is what I was trying to say Thanks Amused.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: her209
What does that mean? You're either or you aren't. You can't be in between.

Buddy, no major politician that has EVER been elected has been 100% true to their alleged ideals. In a democracy, every politician is "in between."

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
Reagan's 1981 income tax cuts, the largest in American history, were passed with bipartisan support by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate. Reagan's support for an increased defense budget also was supported by Congressional Democrats. These Democrats, however, were not so willing to go along with Reagan's proposed cuts in domestic programs. The resulting increase of the national budget deficit led Reagan and Congress to approve tax increases in 1982 and 1983.

Senate balance:
97th Congress: 1981-1983: Republicans 53 seats, Dems 46 seats.
98th Congress: 1983-1985: Republicans 54 seats, Dems 46 seats.
99th Congress: 1985-1987: Republicans 53 seats, Dems 47 seats.

Don't give me that Democrats in charge crap. Republicans had BOTH the presidency and the senate. The two years when Democrats had the senate (1988 and 1989) are noticibly absent from the years of high spending in my list above.

 

[DrPizza]

lmao... ask a simple question, get the thread hijacked by the P&N people.

This thread probably qualifies for OT, it's the posters who don't belong in here.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
Reagan's 1981 income tax cuts, the largest in American history, were passed with bipartisan support by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate. Reagan's support for an increased defense budget also was supported by Congressional Democrats. These Democrats, however, were not so willing to go along with Reagan's proposed cuts in domestic programs. The resulting increase of the national budget deficit led Reagan and Congress to approve tax increases in 1982 and 1983.

Senate balance:
97th Congress: 1981-1983: Republicans 53 seats, Dems 46 seats.
98th Congress: 1983-1985: Republicans 54 seats, Dems 46 seats.
99th Congress: 1985-1987: Republicans 53 seats, Dems 47 seats.

Don't give me that Democrats in charge crap. Republicans had BOTH the presidency and the senate. The two years when Democrats had the senate (1988 and 1989) are noticibly absent from the years of high spending in my list above.

It doesn't require a majority to stop a bill. Just a filibuster or a couple of opposing party members on your side.

Meanwhile, Democrats controlled the house during that entire time (by an overwhelming majority). Republicans had the Senate.

Nice try, though. Especially using "congress" when you had only one branch of it.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
It doesn't require a majority to stop a bill. Just a filibuster or a couple of opposing party members on your side.

So the Democrats somehow filibustered the republicans into spending more and more each year? They had control of the senate and they had control of the presidency. Thus, they had control of the budget. With both the presidency and senate, they sent spending through the roof. Nice try blaming it on the party with only control of 1/3rd of the picture.

Nice try, though. Especially using "congress" when you had only one branch of it.

I know that facts and proper terminology are not things you like dealing with, Amused. However, you'll just have to get past that. I clearly put Senate balance at the top of that small table. Then I used the proper Senate terminology as seen here on the US Senate website. I wish I could live in your imaginary world, Amused, but I live in reality.

 

[preslove]

LBJ started signing civil rights legislation and Great Society programs, which infuriated the racist southerners. In 1968 George (evil) Wallace, a former Democratic governor of Alabama made famous by his refusal to allow black students to enter the University of Alabama, ran for President as the American Independent Party candidate and won a couple of southern states. He used many buzzwords that signified anti-black attitudes, like "law and order" that were nevertheless considered appropriate public political speech. Nixon recognized the potential of Wallace's campaign and took many of his policies and buzzwords, creating what they termed, a Southern Strategy.

If you want a short read on this topic, I'd recommend Dan T. Carter's From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich: Race in the Conservative Counterrevolution, 1963-1994

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Ryan
Racism and inequality has no one political affiliation - never has, never will.

Yep. You can't just lump all ignorant people into one camp. Both sides had their bad apples. Don't think for a minute there weren't slaves in the North and that they were all for desegregation.

Your view of the South must have come from the movies.

You have a very white washed view of Southern history. The Democratic party was the party of Jim Crow until FDR.

 

[LEDominator]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Ryan
Racism and inequality has no one political affiliation - never has, never will.

Yep. You can't just lump all ignorant people into one camp. Both sides had their bad apples. Don't think for a minute there weren't slaves in the North and that they were all for desegregation.

Your view of the South must have come from the movies.

You have a very white washed view of Southern history. The Democratic party was the party of Jim Crow until FDR.

This makes me laugh. FDR did jack ****** to help blacks and no change came until the 1960's and even then it was more of a bipartison thing. I also think it is quite amusing how people somehow view the North as "not racist" and the South as racist when the reality is that both were just as equally racist. I have a professor who has said that in some of the interviews she has done on black people who moved from the South to the North in the 1930's through 1960's that some of the worst racism they encountered was in the North.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: LEDominator

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: slsmnaz

Originally posted by: Ryan
Racism and inequality has no one political affiliation - never has, never will.

Yep. You can't just lump all ignorant people into one camp. Both sides had their bad apples. Don't think for a minute there weren't slaves in the North and that they were all for desegregation.

Your view of the South must have come from the movies.

You have a very white washed view of Southern history. The Democratic party was the party of Jim Crow until FDR.

This makes me laugh. FDR did jack ****** to help blacks and no change came until the 1960's and even then it was more of a bipartison thing. I also think it is quite amusing how people somehow view the North as "not racist" and the South as racist when the reality is that both were just as equally racist. I have a professor who has said that in some of the interviews she has done on black people who moved from the South to the North in the 1930's through 1960's that some of the worst racism they encountered was in the North.

Blacks were not regularly murdered in the North by lynch mobs. There was definately racism in the North, but it was nothing close to what was going down in the South. Nothing. Close.

FDR signalled the beginning of the shift. Republicans until then were the only ones speaking to blacks. They had been sending some $ to black orgs since reconstruction.

LBJ's signing of civil rights legislation was a very bold and courageous because he knew what it would mean to the Democratic party.


edit:
Lynchings: By State and Race, 1882-1968 *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

State White Black Total

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama 48 299 347
Arizona 31 0 31
Arkansas 58 226 284
California 41 2 43
Colorado 65 3 68
Delaware 0 1 1
Florida 25 257 282
Georgia 39 492 531
Idaho 20 0 20
Illinois 15 19 34
Indiana 33 14 47
Iowa 17 2 19
Kansas 35 19 54
Kentucky 63 142 205
Louisiana 56 335 391
Maine 1 0 1
Maryland 2 27 29
Michigan 7 1 8
Minnesota 5 4 9
Mississippi 42 539 581
Missouri 53 69 122
Montana 82 2 84
Nebraska 52 5 57
Nevada 6 0 6
New Jersey 1 1 2
New Mexico 33 3 36
New York 1 1 2
North Carolina 15 86 101
North Dakota 13 3 16
Ohio 10 16 26
Oklahoma 82 40 122
Oregon 20 1 21
Pennsylvania 2 6 8
South Carolina 4 156 160
South Dakota 27 0 27
Tennessee 47 204 251
Texas 141 352 493
Utah 6 2 8
Vermont 1 0 1
Virginia 17 83 100
Washington 25 1 26
West Virginia 20 28 48
Wisconsin 6 0 6
Wyoming 30 5 35

Total 1,297 3,446 4,743
*Statistics provided by the Archives at Tuskegee Institute.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
It doesn't require a majority to stop a bill. Just a filibuster or a couple of opposing party members on your side.

So the Democrats somehow filibustered the republicans into spending more and more each year? They had control of the senate and they had control of the presidency. Thus, they had control of the budget. With both the presidency and senate, they sent spending through the roof. Nice try blaming it on the party with only control of 1/3rd of the picture.

Nice try, though. Especially using "congress" when you had only one branch of it.

I know that facts and proper terminology are not things you like dealing with, Amused. However, you'll just have to get past that. I clearly put Senate balance at the top of that small table. Then I used the proper Senate terminology as seen here on the US Senate website. I wish I could live in your imaginary world, Amused, but I live in reality.

"Congress" is a combination of both the Senate and the House.

That is a fact, and that is proper terminology.

Again, nice try. You may have said "senate" at the top, but each line said "congress" and you conspicuously left out the fact that the house was overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrats.

If one party has control of the Senate and another party has control of the House you have virtual gridlock. All bills must pass both the Senate and the House.

What was that about facts? OOPS!

In case you need reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_the_United_States

The United States Congress is the legislature of the United States federal government. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Bills (and other proposals) may be introduced by any member of either house. However, the Constitution provides that: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. Although it cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, the Senate retains the power to amend or reject them.

Wanna apologize now? Or will you foolishly keep arguing in a vain effort to save face.

BTW, what was that about "facts" and "proper terminology" again?

OOPS!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: preslove

Blacks were not regularly murdered in the North by lynch mobs. There was definately racism in the North, but it was nothing close to what was going down in the South. Nothing. Close.

Well, the KKK did run the State of Indiana for much of the first quarter of the 20th century.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: preslove

Blacks were not regularly murdered in the North by lynch mobs. There was definately racism in the North, but it was nothing close to what was going down in the South. Nothing. Close.

Well, the KKK did run the State of Indiana for much of the first quarter of the 20th century.

There's the KKK, and then there's the KKK.

Historians generally break the KKK up into three different generations: Reconstruction , the turn of the century/1910's, and the civil rights era. The first and last were localized in the south, while the middle spread to the midwest and was generally blamed on the movement of blacks north. The first and last outbreaks were much, much, much, much deadlier to blacks than the midwestern activities.

My list above shows that only 14 blacks were lynched between 1882 and 1968, whereas most southern states were in the thriple digits. That list is misleading, however, because many blacks were brutally murdered during reconstruction and the civil rights eras without the presence of a lynch mob.

Before Jim Crowe was legislated in the southern states the newlly enfranchised former slaves had to be disenfranchised (many deep south states had either black majorities or majority coalitions of blacks and white Republicans). The KKK and other secret societies acted as paramilitary forces that brutally murdered and intimidated blacks until they stayed away from the polls, thereby allowing solid white, Democratic majorities to come into power. This is the status quo that Jim Crowe cemented.

The second wave of the KKK was much less violent and was mostly centered in midwestern and northern areas recieving influxes of southern blacks during the beginning of the 20th century. AFAIK this wave was mostly political and did not result in widespread non-official violence against African Americans. This KKK was closer to a fraternal organization that hated blacks, jews, and catholics than a violent movement of ex-soldiers intent on murdering blacks and Republicans

The third wave resulted from the civil rights movement that peaked in the 60's and 70's and was much less organized. During this time excessive nongovernmental violence was directed at blacks. I'll give an example of the violence. After the disappearance of two (I believe) Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) activists in Mississippi, an investigation by the FBI found over 60 fresh corpses of african americans in the surrounding areas before the two tortured bodies of the two activists were found.

Violence and brutal murder were used in southern states to subjugate their large black populations. This really wasn't the case in the north, midwest, and west. Yes, there was racism in those areas, but it never got anywhere near as acute as it did in the deep south. The South remained in Democratic hands following the civil war on the graves of the massacred.

Claims of parity between the race relations of North and South are shocking testaments to a general ignorance of US history in the wider public.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

The answer you seek is the 1964 civil rights act. "President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would mean losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party. Legend has it that he remarked after signing the Act, "We have lost the South for a generation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

While to a large degree this bill was north vs. south rather than republican v. democrat, the racist demographic blames the democrats, hence the south voting republican. Racism is now one of the core values of many stalwart republican supporters, but they thinly veil it by attacking things correlated with being a minority rather than blatantly targeting minorities. Racism is now implemented more at the executive, enforcement, and judicial levels than the legislative level that was common prior to 1964. At the least, republicans have proven more skilled at presenting ads and arguments that appeal to racists, although prior to youtube this wasn't as readily apparent to northerners.

Edit: Changed "the" to "many" for greater lingual precision.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlordRacism is now one of the core values of the stalwart republican supporters,

by your argument, as a republican, i must be a racist?

moron.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
"Congress" is a combination of both the Senate and the House.

That is a fact, and that is proper terminology.

Congress is a combination of both, that is true. But when you are referring to specific Senate years, you call them the 90th Congress, the 95th Congress, or the XXth Congress depending on the specific years you are referring to. That is how it goes. I cannot change that terminology to fit your whims.

Again, nice try. You may have said "senate" at the top, but each line said "congress" and you conspicuously left out the fact that the house was overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrats.

I never once said the Democrats didn't have control of the house. You are 100% correct that the Democrats had control of the house. That fact isn't important to this thread, but you are correct there. Now lets see here what you said:

Originally posted by: Amused
by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Hmm, did you just refer to most of Bush's years with a Democratic-controlled Senate? Again, Amused, I realize that you are physically incapable of admitting that you are wrong, but you were wrong.

If one party has control of the Senate and another party has control of the House you have virtual gridlock. All bills must pass both the Senate and the House.

Exactly. You can't pass a massive spending INCREASE without the Republican controlled Senate passing it. Thank you for finally saying I was correct.

Although it cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, the Senate retains the power to amend or reject them.

Bingo. The Republican Senate did NOT amend them sufficently to avoid massive spending increases and did NOT reject them and the Republican president signed them into law. The Democratic-controlled House could have passed a $100 trillion dollar massive spending increase, but the Republican-controlled Senate can reject it stopping it immediately. Or the Republican president can veto it. A veto requires 66% majority to over ride it. Hmm, Democrats didn't have 66% control through the Reagan years. Gridlock can = NO spending increases (if the Republicans wanted no spending increase that is).

House balance:
97th Congress: Ds: 61.8%, Rs: 38.2%. Nope, not enough to override a veto.
98th Congress: Ds: 58.2%, Rs: 41.8%. Nope, not enough to override a veto.
99th Congress: Ds: 59.3%, Rs: 40.7%. Nope, not enough to override a veto.
100th Congress: Ds: 59.8%, Rs: 40.2%. Nope, not enough to override a veto.

I do appologize whenever I am wrong. However, I am 100% correct here. You can keep fighting this losing battle with your "Democratic-controlled House and Senate" in the Reagan era. It just makes you look worse in everyone's eyes.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
"Congress" is a combination of both the Senate and the House.

That is a fact, and that is proper terminology.

Congress is a combination of both, that is true. But when you are referring to specific Senate years, you call them the 90th Congress or the 95th Congress. That is how it goes.

Again, nice try. You may have said "senate" at the top, but each line said "congress" and you conspicuously left out the fact that the house was overwhelmingly controlled by the Democrats.

I never once said the Democrats didn't have control of the house. But here is what you said:

Originally posted by: Amused
by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate.

Hmm, did you just refer to most of Bush's years with a Democratic-controlled Senate? Again, Amused, I realize that you are physically incapable of admitting that you are wrong, but you were wrong.

If one party has control of the Senate and another party has control of the House you have virtual gridlock. All bills must pass both the Senate and the House.

Exactly. You can't pass a massive spending INCREASE without the Republican controlled Senate passing it. Thank you for finally saying I was correct.

Although it cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, the Senate retains the power to amend or reject them.

Bingo. The Republican Senate did NOT amend and did NOT reject them and the Republican president signed them into law. I appologize if I am wrong. I am 100% correct here.

That quote was not mine. But I'll tell you what, it does NOT state the Senate was Democratic controlled, just the House. That quote is not wrong. In fact, it comes from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

It's not my fault you misunderstood it.

You cannot pass a spending increase without the HOUSE initiating it.

Again, with a divided congress, you have gridlock unless compromises are made. Because many spending increases are attached as riders to other important bills, the Senate was hamstringed into passing them, or passing nothing.

Finally, while the Democrat majority of the House was overwhelming, the Republican majority in the Senate was slight. Giving more power to the Dems than the Reps in congress.

Vetos have nothing to do with it in this case. Because to veto the spending increases would mean vetoing every important piece of legislation. Sorry you wasted your time on that pile of nonsense.

You're wrong. Sorry.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
That quote was not mine. But I'll tell you what, it does NOT state the Senate was Democratic controlled, just the House. That quote is not wrong. In fact, it comes from here:

Wikipedia is wrong (it wasn't a democratic controlled house AND senate). Then you quoted it here without reference. Then I'm supposed to pretend it wasn't your intention to use those exact words. Please.

You cannot pass a massive sepnding increase without the HOUSE initiating it.

Exactly. But you can't pass a massive spending increase without the SENATE and PRESIDENT approving of it. I agree with your irrelevant house initiating it part. But, (A) you have to agree to my senate and president approving it part or (B) you are an idiot. Your choice.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
That quote was not mine. But I'll tell you what, it does NOT state the Senate was Democratic controlled, just the House. That quote is not wrong. In fact, it comes from here:

Wikipedia is wrong and you quoted it here without reference. Then I'm supposed to pretend it wasn't your quote. Please.

You cannot pass a massive sepnding increase without the HOUSE initiating it.

Exactly. But you can't pass a massive spending increase without the SENATE and PRESIDENT approving of it. I agree with your house initiating it part. But you have to agree to my senate and president approving it part or you are an idiot.

I explained the last part. It's not my fault you are so simplistic as to think spending increases are presented as singular bills.

As for the Wikiquote, it is factually correct:

"were passed with bipartisan support by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate"

This does not state that the Senate is Democratic controlled. Only the House. If it was to mean both are contolled it would have said "democratic controlled congress."

Again, I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. But that's not my fault.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Amused
"were passed with bipartisan support by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate"

This does not state that the Senate is Democratic controlled. Only the House. If it was to mean both are contolled it would have said "democratic controlled congress."

Again, I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. But that's not my fault.

The "and" part of that sentence, if using correct grammar, must be interpretted as meaning the Democrats control the Senate. I admit that the incorrect grammar caused me to misunderstand both your post and Wikipedias article. I will correct that Wikipedia article to use proper grammar. I hope you will correct your post.

I will assume that you chose option (B) from my post above unless you post otherwise.

Back to the original side-topic of the thread: Reagan was a high spending Democrat who supported FDR and the New Deal in the 1940s. Then right around the time of the Dixiecrat switch, Reagan too switched parties. Reagan used low-speding rhetoric but he never used his veto power as president to obtain that low-spending rhetoric goals. This is similar to the Republicans using anti-abortion rhetoric to gain power, and then never really doing anything anti-abortion (especially local Republican politicians).

 

[Queasy]

It's hard to say because the definition of racism has changed so much. Back in the civil rights era, racism meant things like segregation and oppression. Nowadays, you get called a racist for not supporting things like affirmative action (racial preferences).

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Amused
"were passed with bipartisan support by the Democratic-controlled House and Senate"

This does not state that the Senate is Democratic controlled. Only the House. If it was to mean both are contolled it would have said "democratic controlled congress."

Again, I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. But that's not my fault.

The "and" part of that sentence, if using correct grammar, must be interpretted as meaning the Democrats control the Senate. I admit that the incorrect grammar caused me to misunderstand both your post and Wikipedias article. I will correct that Wikipedia article to use proper grammar. I hope you will correct your post.

I will assume that you chose option (B) from my post above unless you post otherwise.

Back to the original topic of the thread: Reagan was a high spending Democrat who supported FDR and the new deal in the 1940s. Then right around the time of the Dixiecrat switch, Reagan too switched parties. Reagan used low-speding rhetoric but he never used his veto power as president to obtain that low-spending rhetoric goals. This is similar to the Republicans using anti-abortion rhetoric to gain power, and then never really doing anything anti-abortion (especially local Republican politicians).

The "and" does NOT mean it's Democratic controlled. It means they supported the cuts.

There is no need to change the article because you misunderstood it.

Actually, he used his veto power as much as he could, and still get his agenda passed as well. He spent a lot of time complaining abot how all major bills had riders attached that he would have liked to have vetoed, but had to compromise to get the work of the government done.

Like I said, were he to veto all the bills containing spending increases or pork barrel projects, he would never have passed a major bill.

Maybe you should go see how riders are attached to bills before continuing this debate?