Righties: what are three things Repubs have done for the middle class in 30 years

[Craig234]

Ended the Democrat-led Senate filibuster of the landmark 1964 Civil Rights act (much to Bobby Byrd's chagrin), leading to its passage a short time later?

That's pretty disgusting, trying to give Republicans credit for the civil rights bill.

The bill was completely the result of the leadership of Democrats - JFK and LBJ. The Republicans get credit for voting for it more than they voted against it, oncie it was up for a vote.

But let's be clear - the leaqdership was Democrats, and the opposition was regional, not party - it was the racist South.

When you take the Southerners out of the vote, a higher percent of non-Southern Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans voted for the bill.

Those same southerners who soon left the party over Democrats leading this bill's passage, who Republicans gleefully recruited with appeals to the racists, costing the Dems the White House for decades.

 

[Craig234]

I'll say this much:

Palehorse and Craig don't appear to understand the other persons position at all. Both are valid.

You're confusing Palehorse wrongly saying that with it being the case. Please, name one wingle point of his you think that's true about, and I'll disabuse you of the notion. Inoring his junk isn't not understanding it.

 

[shiner]

You're confusing Palehorse wrongly saying that with it being the case. Please, name one wingle point of his you think that's true about, and I'll disabuse you of the notion. Inoring his junk isn't not understanding it.

 

[Craig234]

You mean they dont? So this chart is incorrect?

Blackangst, you are sure being a good parrot.

Ignoring, for example what I said. Policies lead to a rich person making 3 times the income, and with aggressive tax to his benefits he now pays twice the income taxes. Big cut in his rate.

Blackangst falles for the propaganda: "He's paying twice the tax, big increase!!"

Wrong.

You are trying to claim the Bush borrowed tax cuts INCREASED the tax burden on the wealthy.

You don't link who complied your data and presented it.

Check a real study, comparing tax shares, including changes in income.

 

[blackangst1]

That's pretty disgusting, trying to give Republicans credit for the civil rights bill.

The bill was completely the result of the leadership of Democrats - JFK and LBJ. The Republicans get credit for voting for it more than they voted against it, oncie it was up for a vote.

But let's be clear - the leaqdership was Democrats, and the opposition was regional, not party - it was the racist South.

When you take the Southerners out of the vote, a higher percent of non-Southern Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans voted for the bill.

Those same southerners who soon left the party over Democrats leading this bill's passage, who Republicans gleefully recruited with appeals to the racists, costing the Dems the White House for decades.

You are out of your fucking mind. Seriously. How you can post such outright flagrant bullshit, and believe it, is beyond me. Your credibility is now zero. It is only in the last 30 years Democrats, as a party, have decided to beat the equality drum. They have a looong history of denying others rights. Yeah, its a wall-o-text. But you know what? The Democrats have a loooong history of stomping other's rights. Truth sucks doesnt it?

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: “I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever”; Douglas became Democratic Party’s 1860 presidential nominee
April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy “shall be forever free”
January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition
April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition
November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting “black codes,” which institutionalized racial discrimination
February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement “40 acres and a mule” relief by distributing land to former slaves
April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson’s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law
May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no
June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans
March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: “This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men”
September 3, 1868
25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress
September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party’s national campaign theme: “This is a white man’s country: Let white men rule”
October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan
December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office
February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans’ Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American’s civil rights
June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South
September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women’s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell
February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters
April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands
October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan
November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for “the Republican ticket, straight”
January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government
September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed
March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition
January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women’s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong
February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans’ Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party’s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans
May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%
February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP
May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no
August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures
January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster
June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans
October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention
June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country
August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation
June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it
August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman’s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that “The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.”
September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education
November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel
March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation
June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down “blacks in the back of the bus” law
November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President
September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party’s 1957 Civil Rights Act
September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools
May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans’ Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats
May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights
September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School
June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate
June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor
February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt’s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII
September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs
June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act
August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR
November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation
August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans’ Contract With America, becomes law




You really need to brush up on your history.

 

[palehorse]

You don't link who complied your data and presented it.

Check a real study, comparing tax shares, including changes in income.

umm, that would be the CBO... it's right there in the image.

Or is the CBO only referential when they release analysis that support your own views?

 

[teddyv]

Republicans ended the Democrat-led filibuster - that is entirely factual. Twist it as you may, you've still got the ringleader of that filibuster (and former Ku Klux Klan Leader and Recruiter) as the most respected member among Democrats in the Senate to this very day.

You're never going to win at this, no matter how angry you get. Neither party holds an exclusive right to, well being right. (Though if you are in the middle class and have good health insurance you are sure going to get SCREWED by Obama's health bill, well, unless you're in the SEIU or one of the other unions who own Obama and the Dem Congress and have managed to pervert the whole process...)

 

[blackangst1]

Blackangst, you are sure being a good parrot.

Ignoring, for example what I said. Policies lead to a rich person making 3 times the income, and with aggressive tax to his benefits he now pays twice the income taxes. Big cut in his rate.

I intentionally ignored it, because, unlike you, I dont have a problem with wealth. Whats to discuss?

Blackangst falles for the propaganda: "He's paying twice the tax, big increase!!"

Wrong.

You are trying to claim the Bush borrowed tax cuts INCREASED the tax burden on the wealthy.

Did the rich pay a greater percentage of total taxes collected AFTER the cuts? The answer is yes. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the CBO. Im not sure how you can argue public data.

You don't link who complied your data and presented it.

Check a real study, comparing tax shares, including changes in income.

This particular graph came from the Heritage foundation, but the data, if you looked at the graph, is from the CBO. Are you claiming it is wrong?

 

[Greenman]

I disagree with the basic premise of the question. It's not up to government to do anything for the middle class.

 

[Craig234]

You are out of your fucking mind. Seriously. How you can post such outright flagrant bullshit, and believe it, is beyond me. Your credibility is now zero. It is only in the last 30 years Democrats, as a party, have decided to beat the equality drum. They have a looong history of denying others rights. Yeah, its a wall-o-text. But you know what? The Democrats have a loooong history of stomping other's rights. Truth sucks doesnt it?

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: ?I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever?; Douglas became Democratic Party?s 1860 presidential nominee
April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy ?shall be forever free?
January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition
April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition
November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting ?black codes,? which institutionalized racial discrimination
February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement ?40 acres and a mule? relief by distributing land to former slaves
April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson?s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law
May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans? 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no
June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans? 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson?s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson?s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans
March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: ?This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men?
September 3, 1868
25 African-Americans in Georgia legislature, all Republicans, expelled by Democrat majority; later reinstated by Republican Congress
September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and all other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party?s national campaign theme: ?This is a white man?s country: Let white men rule?
October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan
December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office
February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans? 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans? Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American?s civil rights
June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South
September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women?s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell
February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters
April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands
October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan
November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for ?the Republican ticket, straight?
January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government
September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed
March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition
January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women?s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong
February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans? Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party?s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans
May 29, 1902
Virginia Democrats implement new state constitution, condemned by Republicans as illegal, reducing African-American voter registration by 86%
February 12, 1909
On 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln?s birth, African-American Republicans and women?s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP
May 21, 1919
Republican House passes constitutional amendment granting women the vote with 85% of Republicans in favor, but only 54% of Democrats; in Senate, 80% of Republicans would vote yes, but almost half of Democrats no
August 18, 1920
Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures
January 26, 1922
House passes bill authored by U.S. Rep. Leonidas Dyer (R-MO) making lynching a federal crime; Senate Democrats block it with filibuster
June 2, 1924
Republican President Calvin Coolidge signs bill passed by Republican Congress granting U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans
October 3, 1924
Republicans denounce three-time Democrat presidential nominee William Jennings Bryan for defending the Ku Klux Klan at 1924 Democratic National Convention
June 12, 1929
First Lady Lou Hoover invites wife of U.S. Rep. Oscar De Priest (R-IL), an African-American, to tea at the White House, sparking protests by Democrats across the country
August 17, 1937
Republicans organize opposition to former Ku Klux Klansman and Democrat U.S. Senator Hugo Black, appointed to U.S. Supreme Court by FDR; his Klan background was hidden until after confirmation
June 24, 1940
Republican Party platform calls for integration of the armed forces; for the balance of his terms in office, FDR refuses to order it
August 8, 1945
Republicans condemn Harry Truman?s surprise use of the atomic bomb in Japan. The whining and criticism goes on for years. It begins two days after the Hiroshima bombing, when former Republican President Herbert Hoover writes to a friend that ?The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul.?
September 30, 1953
Earl Warren, California?s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, nominated to be Chief Justice; wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education
November 25, 1955
Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel
March 12, 1956
Ninety-seven Democrats in Congress condemn Supreme Court?s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and pledge to continue segregation
June 5, 1956
Republican federal judge Frank Johnson rules in favor of Rosa Parks in decision striking down ?blacks in the back of the bus? law
November 6, 1956
African-American civil rights leaders Martin Luther King and Ralph Abernathy vote for Republican Dwight Eisenhower for President
September 9, 1957
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republican Party?s 1957 Civil Rights Act
September 24, 1957
Sparking criticism from Democrats such as Senators John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, President Dwight Eisenhower deploys the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools
May 6, 1960
President Dwight Eisenhower signs Republicans? Civil Rights Act of 1960, overcoming 125-hour, around-the-clock filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats
May 2, 1963
Republicans condemn Democrat sheriff of Birmingham, AL for arresting over 2,000 African-American schoolchildren marching for their civil rights
September 29, 1963
Gov. George Wallace (D-AL) defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School
June 9, 1964
Republicans condemn 14-hour filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act by U.S. Senator and former Ku Klux Klansman Robert Byrd (D-WV), who still serves in the Senate
June 10, 1964
Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) criticizes Democrat filibuster against 1964 Civil Rights Act, calls on Democrats to stop opposing racial equality. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists?one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed.
August 4, 1965
Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen (R-IL) overcomes Democrat attempts to block 1965 Voting Rights Act; 94% of Senate Republicans vote for landmark civil right legislation, while 27% of Democrats oppose. Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor
February 19, 1976
President Gerald Ford formally rescinds President Franklin Roosevelt?s notorious Executive Order authorizing internment of over 120,000 Japanese-Americans during WWII
September 15, 1981
President Ronald Reagan establishes the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, to increase African-American participation in federal education programs
June 29, 1982
President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act
August 10, 1988
President Ronald Reagan signs Civil Liberties Act of 1988, compensating Japanese-Americans for deprivation of civil rights and property during World War II internment ordered by FDR
November 21, 1991
President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation
August 20, 1996
Bill authored by U.S. Rep. Susan Molinari (R-NY) to prohibit racial discrimination in adoptions, part of Republicans? Contract With America, becomes law




You really need to brush up on your history.

Those are big and dishonest attacks from you. Not one word in your lengthy cut and paste contradicts one word in my post, leaving your attack for the lie it is.

At least you posted the link for a change, so we can see the site, an anonymous one guy site witha Fox news link, cherrypicking any tidbit he can showing good race actions in Republican history out of context.

You need to brush up on your reading comprehensin and your history. Cherry picked Republican bits are not a history. But don't repeat if you can't stope the lies. You continue to waste my time as well.

 

[palehorse]

What percentage of your income in taxes is low enough that you would consider yourself "not tread on"?

Same question to palehorse.

I'd say that 35% is a decent maximum percentage to use in a progressive system of federal income taxation -- just as it was in 2009. However, I'm only a fan of progression when the line is a straight one. I do not want to ever see that line of progression curve exponentially upward at any arbitrarily chosen threshold of income.

I've also gone back and forth on the merits of a flat tax system, given its seemingly obvious "fairness" factor, but I'm not familiar enough with all of the numbers to pick a fixed percentage for such a system. It would also require a complete rewrite in the other types of taxes that also burden every level of income, so it may just be too complex to implement fairly.

That said, I dont wish to go off topic any longer. The single point I was trying to make with Craig was that tax cuts, taken by themselves, can never be considered a "redistribution;" since they are, by their very definition, the complete opposite.

Craig does have a valid point when he broadens the issue to include more expansive "policies," but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. His point also has more to do with "concentration of wealth," than with redistribution.

Anyways...

 

[soccerballtux]

#1-- Preserved the Free Market more than Democrats have, so that bad businesses fail.

 

[Craig234]

Republicans ended the Democrat-led filibuster - that is entirely factual. Twist it as you may, you've still got the ringleader of that filibuster (and former Ku Klux Klan Leader and Recruiter) as the most respected member among Democrats in the Senate to this very day.

You're never going to win at this, no matter how angry you get. Neither party holds an exclusive right to, well being right. (Though if you are in the middle class and have good health insurance you are sure going to get SCREWED by Obama's health bill, well, unless you're in the SEIU or one of the other unions who own Obama and the Dem Congress and have managed to pervert the whole process...)

And you are never going to win lying about who led the civil rights bill, pretending it was about the Democratic party and not the racist south, pretending the party wasn't fractured over this because the rest of the Democrats so favored civil rights while the Southern racists - then still boweevil Democrats - so strongly opposed civil rights (sorry, they 'favored states' rights). You are never going to win lying that the Republicans did not have a southern strategy to appeal to the racist south.

Those are the facts, and you can cherry pick them - only call southernors "Democrats" like any other.

But you won't win the lies you are trying to peddly by hiding the facts, that Republicans are the leaders of the civil rights bills. They played the role I said they played.

Without JFK and LBJ, there was no civil rights bill.

 

[Craig234]

umm, that would be the CBO... it's right there in the image.

Or is the CBO only referential when they release analysis that support your own views?

I thought you were better than this. Blackangst falling for it is one thing. But you are not, I seel

Let's review.

The rich, for reasons beyond the scope of this thread, *skyrocketed* income far more than others during the last 30 years. THe bottom 80% got nothig after inflation, the top 0.01% several hundred percent.

If someone rich's income goes up 300%, under a proportional tax increase, their taxes would go up about 300%. If they went up 500% because of increase on their tax rate, you might call that a tax increase. If they went up 200% because of tax rate decreases, you might call that a tax cut. Under all the scenarios their taxes went 'up' because their income went up - and you are vulnerable to the idiot right screaming "tax increase! they're paying more taxes!" while ignoring the income increase.

Someone who pays more taxes because their income went up did not necessarily get a 'tax increase', which refers to the rate of taxation.

You can't texpect them, in our tax system, not to pay a dollar more in taxes as their income doubles. That would be a huge rate *decrease*.

So, to be clear, since it hasn't sunk in yet, calling someone paying more tax dollars because their income shot up a 'victim of a tax increase' is a *false argument*. Clear?

And if he gets a preferential tax *cut*, then he will pay more taxes with the income increase, but not as much more as without the preferential tax cut. Still got it?

That leads us to the chart. The CBO data is reliable, and fine. But someone presented *only* the tax payment changes, without any info on the income increases, to tell exactly that lie above.

When I asked, who collected and presented the data, you answered 'the CBO, it says so right there'.

Thank you, corporal obvious. I saw that, Ny question was, who got the data from the CBO, qand cherry picked it to present it in this powerpoint asa misleading argument? You did not know.

Blackangst answered exactly the group I would have first suspected - the Republican propagada think tank, the Heritage Foundation, who is to convince average Americans why poicies for the rich are great.

They're not above these lies. (The second suspect, the libertarian counterpart, would have been Cato).

So, we have the Heritage Foundation publishing a misleding argument with a false claim, and Blackgangst swalling it and parroting it here, and you defending it.

Get it?

 

[Craig234]

I disagree with the basic premise of the question. It's not up to government to do anything for the middle class.

Then I have a couopke questions, if you are going to answer. Are you, or are you a driveby poster?

 

[ProfJohn]

That's pretty disgusting, trying to give Republicans credit for the civil rights bill.

The bill was completely the result of the leadership of Democrats - JFK and LBJ. The Republicans get credit for voting for it more than they voted against it, oncie it was up for a vote.

But let's be clear - the leaqdership was Democrats, and the opposition was regional, not party - it was the racist South.

When you take the Southerners out of the vote, a higher percent of non-Southern Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans voted for the bill.

Those same southerners who soon left the party over Democrats leading this bill's passage, who Republicans gleefully recruited with appeals to the racists, costing the Dems the White House for decades.

Would you please name these southerners who left the Democratic party.

 

[palehorse]

I thought you were better than this. Blackangst falling for it is one thing. But you are not, I seel

Let's review.

The rich, for reasons beyond the scope of this thread, *skyrocketed* income far more than others during the last 30 years. THe bottom 80% got nothig after inflation, the top 0.01% several hundred percent.

If someone rich's income goes up 300%, under a proportional tax increase, their taxes would go up about 300%. If they went up 500% because of increase on their tax rate, you might call that a tax increase. If they went up 200% because of tax rate decreases, you might call that a tax cut. Under all the scenarios their taxes went 'up' because their income went up - and you are vulnerable to the idiot right screaming "tax increase! they're paying more taxes!" while ignoring the income increase.

Someone who pays more taxes because their income went up did not necessarily get a 'tax increase', which refers to the rate of taxation.

You can't texpect them, in our tax system, not to pay a dollar more in taxes as their income doubles. That would be a huge rate *decrease*.

So, to be clear, since it hasn't sunk in yet, calling someone paying more tax dollars because their income shot up a 'victim of a tax increase' is a *false argument*. Clear?

And if he gets a preferential tax *cut*, then he will pay more taxes with the income increase, but not as much more as without the preferential tax cut. Still got it?

That leads us to the chart. The CBO data is reliable, and fine. But someone presented *only* the tax payment changes, without any info on the income increases, to tell exactly that lie above.

When I asked, who collected and presented the data, you answered 'the CBO, it says so right there'.

Thank you, corporal obvious. I saw that, Ny question was, who got the data from the CBO, qand cherry picked it to present it in this powerpoint asa misleading argument? You did not know.

Blackangst answered exactly the group I would have first suspected - the Republican propagada think tank, the Heritage Foundation, who is to convince average Americans why poicies for the rich are great.

They're not above these lies. (The second suspect, the libertarian counterpart, would have been Cato).

So, we have the Heritage Foundation publishing a misleding argument with a false claim, and Blackgangst swalling it and parroting it here, and you defending it.

Get it?

blah...blah...blah.

Do you, or do you not, support a progressive system of federal income taxation that is based on a straight line of progression? (Given a maximum percentage imposed at the highest levels... ie. 35%)

Or, rather, do you support a progressive system that curves exponentially upward at some arbitrary point of your choosing?

Is there any cap to the percentage you are willing to impose upon earners, or should the largest earners have rates that quickly approach 99.9%?

This a question of ideology and convictions... let's see if you are willing to spell either of those out in black and white.

 

[Craig234]

blah...blah...blah.

Tha's all I read or plan to read. If that's you reaction to the carefully explains post, I'm wasting my time.

Do you, or do you not, support a progressive system of federal income taxation that is based on a straight line of progression? (Given a maximum percentage imposed at the highest levels... ie. 35%)

Or, rather, do you support a progressive system that curves exponentially upward at some arbitrary point of your choosing?

Is there any cap to the percentage you are willing to impose upon earners, or should the largest earners have rates that quickly approach 99.9%?

This a question of ideology and convictions... let's see if you are willing to spell either of those out in black and white.[/QUOTE]

 

[theevilsharpie]

The rich, for reasons beyond the scope of this thread, *skyrocketed* income far more than others during the last 30 years. THe bottom 80% got nothig after inflation, the top 0.01% several hundred percent.

[citation needed]

 

[Jhhnn]

I'd say that 35% is a decent maximum percentage to use in a progressive system of federal income taxation -- just as it was in 2009. However, I'm only a fan of progression when the line is a straight one. I do not want to ever see that line of progression curve exponentially upward at any arbitrarily chosen threshold of income.

How lame. Wealth and income distribution curves exponentially upwards-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU

Most of the income in the rarified upper end of the curve is from investment, which is taxed at a much lower rate than wages and salaries. Between 2000 and 2006, the top 400 filers' average income doubled to $263M as their federal tax rate plunged to 17.17%, much less than the rest of the top 1%...

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/30/americans-income-doubled-bush/

Tax rates aren't progressive at the top- they actually go down, by a lot...

But, please, don't let facts interfere with the formulation of your opinion, such as it is...

 

[palehorse]

How lame. Wealth and income distribution curves exponentially upwards-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIkIph5xcU

Most of the income in the rarified upper end of the curve is from investment, which is taxed at a much lower rate than wages and salaries. Between 2000 and 2006, the top 400 filers' average income doubled to $263M as their federal tax rate plunged to 17.17%, much less than the rest of the top 1%...

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/30/americans-income-doubled-bush/

Tax rates aren't progressive at the top- they actually go down, by a lot...

But, please, don't let facts interfere with the formulation of your opinion, such as it is...

so, your problem is actually with capital gains taxes then, right? Separate issue... but let's discuss.

When people -- anyone -- invest, what does their invested money do for the entities they invest in, and for the rest of the economy as a whole?

The answer to that question is the basis for the entire concept of capital gains taxing, and the explanation for the lower rates on ALL capital gains, regardless of the level of wealth for any particular investor.

Ultimately, are you suggesting that capital gains taxes be made more progressive?

 

[palehorse]

Tha's all I read or plan to read. If that's you reaction to the carefully explains post, I'm wasting my time.

don't be scared of the questions Craig, they won't hurt you... here they are again:

Do you, or do you not, support a progressive system of federal income taxation that is based on a straight line of progression? (Given a maximum percentage imposed at the highest levels... ie. 35%)

Or, rather, do you support a progressive system that curves exponentially upward at some arbitrary point of your choosing?

Is there any cap to the percentage you are willing to impose upon earners, or should the largest earners have rates that quickly approach 99.9%?

This a question of ideology and convictions... let's see if you are willing to spell either of those out in black and white

 

[teddyv]

Those are the facts

Actually those are your opinions. I cited fact - call it lies all you like, without contradictory credible cites it's just you trying to play Ed Schultz (and doing a really bad job...)

Besides, it doesn't change the fact that Obama and your Democrat whores screwed a huge chunk of middle class Americans (those not in SEIU, UAW, or one of the other owners of the Democrats) by taxing them for being responsible enough to budget and pay for good health care. No taxes for anyone making less than $200k? Hah, just another Obama lie.

Here is some opinion to chew on - Obama and the Geithner cabal, supported by big money politics (like Goldman Sachs), are engineering the most massive wealth shift this country has ever seen. Away from the middle class, and right into the pockets of their Wall Street Banker and Union owners. Need some fact to chew on? Of the top 10 very biggest of the big-money players in politics, EIGHT of them are unions/professional orgs, one is a bank (Goldman of course), and one is a telecom - AT&T. Eight of those ten heavily favor money to Democrats - the two left, AT&T and the Realtors, are somewhat more evenly divided.

There you go - Democrats, the whores of big money politics. And the greatest success they ever had was not in raising the money, but falsely convincing voters that it was the Republicans who had sold their souls.

More here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/

EDIT: Just heard that the internals are showing Brown closing on a double-digit lead over Coakley for the seat vacated by Ted Kennedy's untimely death. Apparently there was a nice bump after Obama took some time off saving the middle class to fly up to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley, well, when he wasn't getting visibly upset for being heckled at his public appearances.

 

[Jhhnn]

so, your problem is actually with capital gains taxes then... right?

My problem is with deception and unfathomable greed. People whose incomes fall into that tippy-top % are the people who finance the thinktanks and institutes of the Right whose mission is to promulgate the kind of deception linked earlier by Blackangst1. Non-psychopaths wouldn't blink at paying 35% or higher in federal taxes on an income that large rather than trying to convince us that they're over-taxed.

Your own attempts are little better. In the portion of the income curve where increases are linear, taxes should increase in a like fashion. Where the progression is non-linear, at the tippytop, rates can increase faster, given that increased sacrifice at that level affects the taxpayer's lifestyle not in the slightest. 35% of $1M is a significant real world sacrifice, while 35% of $263M isn't nearly the same. Paying 17% of $263M is almost a joke, considering that people making $200K often pay that much...

What we really need are more higher tax brackets that reflect the true income disparity between the 99th and the 99.999th percentiles of income... regardless of the source of that income.

 

[BigDH01]

blah...blah...blah.

Do you, or do you not, support a progressive system of federal income taxation that is based on a straight line of progression? (Given a maximum percentage imposed at the highest levels... ie. 35%)

Do not.

Or, rather, do you support a progressive system that curves exponentially upward at some arbitrary point of your choosing?

Exponentially. And not by my choosing but rather an objective examination of the facts. This seems no more my choosing than the current enumeration of marginal tax brackets. You make it seem as if encouraging this behavior is congruent with arbitrarily deciding who should be taxed. The last one hundred years has shown that the government as a whole can decide what income or wealth determines progressive tax bracket rates.

Is there any cap to the percentage you are willing to impose upon earners, or should the largest earners have rates that quickly approach 99.9%?

I, personally, don't have a cap.

This a question of ideology and convictions... let's see if you are willing to spell either of those out in black and white.

My ideology is left-libertarianism and my conviction is freedom. Thus, I do not believe that any individual should be able to congruently accumulate enough wealth to both shift market prices and not negatively experience the externalities of that shift.