What did Democrats do to....

[confedup]

get the nod as the side of Gov't who are the saviors of minorities?

Honest question.

[rn79870]

Ask Ted Kennedy.

[audtatious]

What does a drunk drowning his date have to do with anything?

[Cold_Zero]

What is interesting is that the Southern Democrats were the initial people in Congress that were opposed to the Civil Rights Act. Not the evil Republicans.

I am not sure where the democrats got their mandate from to speak for the poor, minorities or those who are here illegally. I guess you need to trace the entitlements back to find out that answer.

I have always maintained that its is not the Governments role to provide for me and to 'save' me. I just need them to get out of my way and do their originally appointed job.bud

[Repo Man]

Preach it brother!

[rn79870]

What does a drunk drowning his date have to do with anything?

Start here.

http://www.tedkennedy.com/jour...ities

I'm not against quality health care for anyone, I'm just against aying for it. Let those who want it, buy all they want. Note: In this context, I have no problem with a sick child receiving health care at the public expense if it is otherwise unavailable to them.

[Cold_Zero]

I do have a fundamental problem with the Government taking over either the Health Care system or the Health Insurance system because a few people in this country choose not to carry insurance because it is 'too expensive.' Yet will squander their money in other methods.

My greatest worry is that Corporations will back Nationalizing Health Care and/or Health Insurance and then take the money that they were investing into you and send it back as dividends to stock holders. Right now with most people's pay not going up to meet even inflation and benefits slowly declining, I don't see how this would help 99% of the workers out there that have Health Insurance provided at their place of employment. It just means that my pay will stay the same, my benefits will decrease and 100% of the burden of my Health Insurance premiums will be paid by me. Which ultimately means less money in Bud's pockets. But don't worry, I am sure my taxes will go up as well to pay for everyone else's health insurance.

Which leads me to another fundamental problem I have with Government. The Democrats decry the 'Wind Fall Profits' that the Big Oil Company have made, yet they don't decry the 'Wind Fall Profits" that the Federal government has been pulling in for the past 40 years. Something just doesn't seem right with that. I guess its ok for the Federal Government to make a profit.

[rn79870]

As ashamed as I am to admit this, after watching (I forget the which show it was) on Sunday morning, and seeing McCain talk about his plan and the plan of the democrats for the future of this country, everyone is missing the simple point. You can't spend more than you have in the bank. This isn't rocket science here, it's Economics 1A

McCain claims he will go on a mission to chop the budget and eliminate the spending that we all find so wasteful. It's not like I haven't heard this a thousand times before, but he came across as sincere. This is the year I just may vote for the Republican candidate. The D@#$ democraps just aren't getting it.

Or I may just write myself in then see if I qualify for some government handout or grant as a defeated politician.

[Cold_Zero]

When you say "everyone" you mean the politicians right? Not the people in this forum? I think most people in here are in consensus. It doesn't work in your household and it doesnt work at the State or Federal levels. You can't spend more than you make.

[rn79870]

Sorry, yes. Everyone means "everyone" elected and sitting in congress, the White house, etc. Those who just don't care that they are writing checks that my grandkids will still be paying for.

I found a receipt for a 1928 Packard that my grand father bought in 1928. One of the items was a $58.00 war tax. Obviously, the war had been over for several years, yet the government had the foresight to pay for the war instead of passing that debt on to future generations.

It's like a parent partying and running up a bill, then leaving it for his kids to pay. And "everyone" (the politicians) just don't see that.

[Cold_Zero]

I am very concerned about passing our debt on to the future generation. I have a 2 year old daughter and cringe to think of her having to pay our tab, because Dad didn't stand up and say "NO" to big government and spending.

[confedup]

I didn't necessarily mean from a healthcare perspective. The general feel for the longest time (even now if you talk to a lot of people) was that the Democrats are the ones who pressed for equality whereas the Republicans were all pro-slavery and such.

[rn79870]

Remember, Lincoln was Republican. Kennedy did a lot to bring equality to the south. Bobby Kennedy did too. The republicans just don't seem to be concerned about social issues, they have wars to fight.

[Cold_Zero]

I do have to admit Confedup, we did go off on a huge tangent. Thanks for getting us back on track.

[audtatious]

Remember, Lincoln was Republican. Kennedy did a lot to bring equality to the south. Bobby Kennedy did too. The republicans just don't seem to be concerned about social issues, they have wars to fight.

Yeah, Abe was a Republican. The Republicans pushed in the Ku Klux Klan act of 1871 and it was Republicans that pressed through the Civil rights laws. Most of the above was not wanted by the Democrats in general. I believe the Democrats at that time passed the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. MLK himself was a Republican as well until something about his brother pissed him off (I just can't find what changed him to move to the Dem side)

[Encryptshun]

The Democratic Party's stance on liberalism, civil rights, and social reform started with F.D.R. and the New Deal. Kennedy then continued the push for civil rights and an end to forced segregation. Lyndon Johnson was the one to carry the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over the goal line and signed it in to law. Keep in mind that from the time of the original Democratic Schism during the Civil War to today, the Democratic party is idiologically split between conservatives and liberals.

As an interesting aside, Ronald Reagan was a big supporter of both Roosevelt and Truman.

[audtatious]

Well, Kennedy did vote against Eisenhower's 1957 Civil rights Act which the Democratic party was highly against. After he was President he did speak about Civil Rights and did press forth legislation for the 1964 bill. He put Bobby in as Atty Gen in order to get existing laws enforced due to actions of those like Bull Connor (Democrat) and others. There is also mention that Kennedy had the FBI wiretapping MLK's phone due to possible communist links (not necessarily MLK himself) and he was against the MLK Washington march from what I remember of history. Robert Byrd (current Democratic Senator of VA) tried to filibuster the 1964 legislation but it was eventually passed anyway.

It seems to me the question is why does the Democrat party get the acknowledgement while the early Civil Rights movement were primarily Republican-initiated and Democratically opposed until after Kennedy came into the office (even though they still had problems getting a majority of Democratic votes).

[Encryptshun]

Jesda's pants

[audtatious]

Damn, why didn't I think of that?

[szh]

I am very concerned about passing our debt on to the future generation. I have a 2 year old daughter and cringe to think of her having to pay our tab, because Dad didn't stand up and say "NO" to big government and spending.

Exactly right!

EDIT: sorry for taking the thread back off track.

Z

[audtatious]

OMG!!!



Guess if you say it enough people will believe it instead of history?

[Bubba1]

Exactly right!

EDIT: sorry for taking the thread back off track.

Z

+1, but it also surprises me that no politician on either side of the aisle seems too concerned about WHO is holding our national debt. I don't see any of the 3 candidates for president are capable of submitting a budget that pays down that debt.

[audtatious]

True. Of the three, Mac seems to be the more "fiscally aware" candidate tho. If he would just get off the UH, illegal immigration and global warming bandwagons he would not be a bad choice.