No blood in ants
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
No blood in ants
C'mon, admit it -- you're gonna miss us when we're gone:
How Will The End Of Print Journalism Affect Old Loons Who Hoard Newspapers?
Comments (158)
Outstanding. The Governor of Virginia has declared April “Confederate History Month.” And Republicans claim that they get such a low percentage of the African American vote because blacks don't realize what's in their own best interests. You know, because it is in their best interests to honor the memory of slavery. Libertarian extremist pandering in 3....2....1.— Talking point sleuth- Next Bucky will suggest we create a new national holiday: Stepinfetchit Day. Because, you know, a character based on a negative racial stereotype straight out of the Birth of a Nation (a character dubbed the "laziest man in the world") isn't really a reflection of racism.— Talking point sleuth
- TPS- confirm (hopefully) you shoot heroin.— Manny Trillo
- An interesting thing I am learning about libs. When they don't agree with something they can't just say so. They want it eliminated from recorded history. While "Confederate History Month" is clearly going to fire people up, there actually was a Confederacy, it was part of our nation's history, there are many Americans with ancestral ties to the Confederacy (that doesn't make them pro-slavery, btw), and most of us don't know enough about our nation's history.The liberal urge to purify history is misguided. I've got an idea, let's add some women to John Turnbull's Declaration of Independence painting to make it more PC!— pjsz1261
- The president rambles incessantly when asked who is his favorite White Sox player. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX0PSoCTFas&feature=player_embedded— RG
- While I do understand the desire of some Americans to commemorate the Confederacy as part of their personal history, I'm not entirely sure what there was about that chapter in history that is worthy of being memorialized by the government of any state on behalf of its residents. You want to commemorate the Confederacy, invite some of your like-minded friends over for a private celebration. And by all means teach about the Confederacy in public school history classes - no worthy purpose would be served by editing it out completely. But having a Confederate History Month seems to me about as appropriate as having an Apartheid History Month. The Confederacy formed in the name of "states' rights" but the main right those states coveted was the right to decide for themselves whether men and women of one color should legally be able to enslave men and women of another.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Wow, off the track on the first post. A new record.— phillyjeffsr
- This is the weekly open thread, right? OK then, I'm going to lob a different rhetorical grenade. If anyone out there was among the folks who believed that the brief period of record snowfall two months ago was proof positive that global warming is a sham: would you care to comment on today's weather?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
Comment removed.- For gosh sakes, bil., you and the Sloth need to just get a room or something.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Comment removed.
- Sorry, Sleuth, I meant to enclose bil.'s "affectionate nickname" for you in ironic quote marks. Point still stands though -- just let me know where the room is so I can call for medical intervention if necessary. Bil., if you're not going to take the bait, then I won't continue to fish. I think you've already grasped my point in any case.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Comment removed.
- Good point, pj. But... Who said anything about "eliminating it from history?" And... Slavery was part of our history also. Would you recommend a "Slavery History Month?— Talking point sleuth
- Say, Idiot. I understand why you needed to change your screenname after being stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid enough to take the name "Idiot." But I think that Bobby Whine would be much more appropriate that Manny Trillo.— Talking point sleuth
- This is the best post Will has ever made. Quite a laugh.— PhillyTru
- HK Edgerton, a proud black southern man, could enlighten you northern bigots about the Confederacy. In antebellum America, the industrial age had not happened yet, and the south was a money making powerhouse. Lincoln was fearful of losing that revenue and that is the reason for his aggressive policies. The bloodshed that ensued was a very tragic episode in our history, but history has been written in a very lopsided manner. Just as Black History month points out people and events that were "overlooked" on purpose, Confederate History month does the same. The reconstructionist historians wrote things their way and frequently evaded the truth in order to make better propaganda.— Mark Glaeser
pjsz, congrats, that may rank as the most inane comment ever. And in that spirit, when does Virginia celebrate Nazi History Month?- "Lincoln was fearful of losing that revenue and that is the reason for his aggressive policies." . . . . . Lincoln wasn't even inaugurated before the first wave of secession. Try again.
- Seems Edgerton was a bit of a bigot himself, advocating a religious test for elected officials in NC. By the way, did the South fear loss of revenue from the abolition of slavery, or were they just worried that black folk would be hungry and unemployed?
- msl- Just as today's economic situations do not start and end neatly with inauguration day, the same problems overlapped administrations back then, as well. Yes, Lincoln WAS fearful of losing the taxes being collected on southern commerce. Slavery was prevalent in the north as well, but the reconstructionist historians choose to forget this fact. Too hard to admit to, I guess.— Mark Glaeser
- "I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was a very nice day today." . . . . . . Doesn't get much better than 90 degrees in early spring, does it batty?
- Comment removed.
- "Slavery was prevalent in the north as well, but the reconstructionist historians choose to forget this fact." . . . . . If your point is that Lincoln was less concerned about slavery than preserving the union, you're absolutely right. That hardly excuses the South's desire to perpetuate slavery, which is what you want to suppress.
- Comment removed.
- "Too hard to admit to, I guess." . . . . Admit that Delaware and Maryland had slavery? Yeah, that fact is nowhere to be found in history. You got me.
"The president rambles incessantly when asked who is his favorite White Sox player."...and your point is?— Les Ismore- "Nope, doesn't get much better than that." . . . . . And to think, no headline on Drudge. Apparently Matt was miserable too.
- "and your point is?" That he's clueless. Why bother wearing a White Sox hat at another teams oepning day if you can't name one player?— RG
- Comment removed.
- "That he's clueless." . . . . I thought it proved he was a Bolshevik or something. Thanks for clearing that up RG.
- "I thought it proved he was a Bolshevik or something." Why would it prove that?— RG
- You know any commies who can name the ChiSox lineup? A hah!
- "You know any commies who can name the ChiSox lineup?" No, but I also don't know any commies who claim to be big fans yet can't name one player.— RG
- Comment removed.
- "No, but I also don't know any commies who claim to be big fans yet can't name one player." . . . . . Clueless indeed. Let's hope he knows the price of gasoline at the pump, eh?
- "Let's hope he knows the price of gasoline at the pump, eh?" Lets hope he doesnt claim to, only to launch into a rambling narrative when questioned further.— RG
- "No, but I also don't know any commies who claim to be big fans yet can't name one player." I don't really care if he lies about being a baseball fan in order to appear more in touch with Americana...after all, that's what politicians do. I just hope that he knows more about the ChiComs than he does about the ChiSox or the ChiCubs!— legatus
- If how we feel about the President is to be predicated on his knowledge of sporting culture, well... brother man's NCAA bracket was WAY off! Oh, wait a minute... so was pretty much everyone else's. Anyway, I think someone should debunk Mark Glaeser's claim that "Slavery was prevalent in the north as well." Yes, there were a handful of slaves remaining in some northern states due to the terms of their gradual emancipation laws and a larger number in some border states that joined the Union but kept slavery legal. That hardly amounts to "prevalence" unless Glaeser's working with some definition of the word "prevalent" of which I am not yet aware. What WAS prevalent in the North was some very ugly racism; the attitude of most folks was "I don't want those people among us on any terms, not as slaves, not as social equals." Look up the Lombard Street Riots or Pennsylvania Hall to get a glimpse of Philadelphia's history in this regard.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "If how we feel about the President is to be predicated on his knowledge of sporting culture," I couldn't care less about his sports knowledge, I just found his pandering and rambling amusing.— RG
- Comment removed.
- Never was sunny and hot before in April? in any year andy decade?— Manny Trillo
- TPS- that knocking is the Meter reader wanting to get in your mom's basement- let the guy in for God's sake.— Manny Trillo
Billy Ray - your post at 9:53a about the racism in the north at the time of the War of Northern Aggression is dead on. You can also look at statements made by Lincoln prior to the war which reflect his opinion that Blacks were not in his mind "equals". Yet the north went to war to "free the slaves" according to our history books - how does that make any sense?? Why would a bunch of racist northerners risk their lives to free people they hated? Not to speak for Mark Glaeser but I think that is the point he was making - pretending, as many do, that the purpose of the Civil War was to free the slaves is intellectually dishonest. The North knew the abolution of slavery would destroy the Southern economy - the fact that some in the North did have slaves wasn't a consideration because the Northern economy wasn't as tied to slavery. Even though Britian had abolished slavery 50 years before the U.S., the British would have been happy to trade with the Southern states if it meant cheap raw materials.— bird11- I have some comments for Billy Ray Winthorpe regarding his statement that "The Confederacy formed in the name of 'states' rights' but the main right those states coveted..." Nonsense. Your view of history is, as is everything leftist, based on revisionist and politically correct notions. The Confederacy was formed in the name of a truly American idea, the idea of national independence. In other words, the states making it up seceded from the Union for the same reasons that the Thirteen Original Colonies seceded from the British Empire. In fact, some Confederates referred to their action as the Revolution of 1860 (the year South Carolina left the Union) because they truly believed they were engaged in the same political work as were those who fought in the Revolutionary War eighty years earlier. As for "states' rights," that was to be part of the political "mechanics" of how many Confederates wanted their new nation to govern itself; it was NOT the motivating political philosophy behind their revolution. In plainer English, the notion of "states rights" was an administrative question -- how to create and maintain the Confederate government. The maintenance of slavery was the primary goal of ONLY a small part of Southern society (the planter elite), namely, those who had a large financial stake in the slave system. Does this clear things up for you, Billy?— George Tomezsko
- "You want to commemorate the Confederacy, invite some of your like-minded friends over for a private celebration." You want to expand health insurance for all, invite some of your like minded friends over and start a charity.— RG
- There was considerable abolitionist sentiment in the North. In the South? I've got news for you boyz - the left has been saying for decades that Lincoln's motivations were primarily political and economic - but the revisionist history about the South, and the fundamental racism that drove the economy of the South is, in a word, stunning. Escaped slaves joined the Union army. I guess Republicans will now tell us that they only did so because they didn't realize that it was in their own bests interests to join the South's ideology of States Rights. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} Why would a bunch of racist northerners risk their lives to free people they hated? {{{--- Right. There was no abolitionist movement, birdie. Good point.— Talking point sleuth
- .......Ah- those "all inclusive" Liberals!!!!........"I've been told I hate myself. I've been called an Uncle Tom. I've been told I'm a spook at the door," said Timothy F. Johnson, chairman of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, a group of black conservatives who support free market principles and limited government......... "Black Republicans find themselves always having to prove who they are. Because the assumption is the Republican Party is for whites and the Democratic Party is for blacks," he said...................... Johnson and other black conservatives say they were drawn to the tea party movement because of what they consider its commonsense fiscal values of controlled spending, less taxes and smaller government. The fact that they're black — or that most tea partyers are white — should have nothing to do with it, they say.............................. "You have to be honest and true to yourself. What am I supposed to do, vote Democratic just to be popular? Just to fit in?" asked Clifton Bazar, a 45-year-old New Jersey freelance photographer and conservative blogger................................. Opponents have branded the tea party as a group of racists hiding behind economic concerns — and reports that some tea partyers were lobbing racist slurs at black congressmen during last month's heated health care vote give them ammunition."— Manny Trillo
- Actually, TPS, you may be stunned to learn that about 30,000 blacks fought FOR the Confederacy. When studying, writing about, or posting on history and historical subjects, it's best to put aside those left-colored shades. The subject is much more complex (and therefore fascinating) than we "modern" people think...— George Tomezsko
- TeaBaKKKer arrested for threatening to kill US Senator http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/man-charged-with-death-threats-apparently-attended-tea-party-protest-of-murray.php?ref=fpb— Les Ismore
- Right, George. And what percentage of those were freed slaves? What percentage were slaves who had no choice but to dig latrines? But yeah, most slaves didn't want to escape to the North, George. They were just fooled by those Northern liberals to think that freedom was in their best interests. Ah. Neo-Conderates are really coming out of the woodwork these days, aren't they. Nothing quite like a black president to stimulate their advocacy for the Confederacy, is there?— Talking point sleuth
- --snip-- The slave owners, for their part, were reluctant to send their bondsmen to the front for two reasons. First, they risked the loss of their most valuable property, and, second, because the men were usually overworked and mistreated, they frequently returned to their homes in very poor physical condition. Thus, the owners often contrived to send only their most unmanageable and therefore least marketable slaves to the army. During the war, threatening to send a slave to the front became the disciplinary equivalent of threatening to sell a slave farther South in antebellum days. Ironically, as the South's cause became more desperate, masters were increasingly reluctant to send their slaves to the military. Slavery was dying, yet those with the most to lose hung on tenaciously to their human property, thereby withholding the one remaining resource that might have saved their nation--and them. --snip--— Talking point sleuth
- "Nothing quite like a black president to stimulate their advocacy for the Confederacy, is there?" Yeah, there has been tons of talk about the confederacy on attytood the past few days. Or you brought it up in your first post and others simply responded.— RG
- --snip-- It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, "saw the elephant" also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. --snip-- Compare that to the numbers of freed slaves who supported the Confederacy, George. Compare that to the number of slaves who sought freedom in the South. Compare that to the millions of slaves in the South. How many slaves were there in the South in the 1860's, George? 40 million? So, maybe 15,000 engaged in battle in support of the Confederacy. Hmmmmm. What's that, about one third of one percent. A minuscule minority, but yet, in your revisionist zeal, that is what you choose to highlight rather than the rampant racism of the Confederacy in a war they fought to preserve an institution that treated humans as less than human. Keep it up, Georgie. Sunlight is a great disinfectant.— Talking point sleuth
- Good point, RG. A Republican governor declares a "Confederate History Month." But I'm a bad guy for posting about it. LOL!— Talking point sleuth
- "A Republican governor declares a "Confederate History Month."" He was elected, right? You're all about trusting the process.— RG
- TPS, I find it strange that you decided to pick and choose a single line from my response to Bill Ray instead of responding to his assertion that "What WAS prevalent in the North was some very ugly racism; the attitude of most folks was "I don't want those people among us on any terms, not as slaves, not as social equals." Look up the Lombard Street Riots or Pennsylvania Hall to get a glimpse of Philadelphia's history in this regard." You see if Billy Ray's assertion is correct than my question deserves an intelligent response but you choose to disparage a valid question than the underlying assertion because intellectual debate is the last thing on your mind.— bird11
- Anyone else notice how mad RG gets when I post about neo-Confederates? Gee. I wonder why that is. Of course, RG, since you whine incessantly about "guilt by association," I should make it absolutely clear that in no way do I think you support the institution of slavery. I do find it interesting, however, that you feel such a reflexive need to pander, deny, diminish, and defend revisionist history that seeks to deflate the significance of racism and slavery in the South.— Talking point sleuth
- ---}}} He was elected, right? You're all about trusting the process. {{{--- Yup. He was elected. Feel free to point out where I questioned his right to declare a policy I find objectionable. I'll leave it to Republicans and Tea Partiers to whine about "tyranny" when elected representatives enact policies they don't agree with.— Talking point sleuth
- "Gee. I wonder why that is." I'm clearly a neo Confederate. And as you can plainly see from my angry tone, I'm very upset.— RG
- ---}}} "What WAS prevalent in the North was some very ugly racism; {{--- birdie, segregation and racism was abundantly prevalent among whites in the North for some 100 years subsequent to the Civil War. That anyone would think that wasn't the case is laughable.— Talking point sleuth
- "Yup. He was elected." So what was your point again?— RG
- TPS please make some sense out of these two responses: {{{Posted 11:41 AM, 04/07/2010 Talking point sleuth ---}}} Why would a bunch of racist northerners risk their lives to free people they hated? {{{--- Right. There was no abolitionist movement, birdie. Good point.}}}} then {{{{---}}} "What WAS prevalent in the North was some very ugly racism; {{--- birdie, segregation and racism was abundantly prevalent among whites in the North for some 100 years subsequent to the Civil War. That anyone would think that wasn't the case is laughable.}}}}} The only thing I get from that second post is that you think your first comment was laughable.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- He was elected, right? You're all about trusting the process." - Yeah, so was Adolph Hitler!— Les Ismore
Am I correct in thinking the very first intergrated regiment was a confederate one ?. and Am I corect in beleiving the war started with the north trying 'to preserve the union'?. And am I correct nobody mentioned emancipation until after Gettysburg ?, and that declaration caused more than a little stir as it was partly the cause for the draft riots , as many objected to fighting to free slaves ?.— PAEnglish- PASpanglish - No you are not correct in any of your assumptions. Starting with King Phillip's war in the 17th century, blacks fought and died alongside whites in an integrated environment in the North American colonies. They continued to fight in every American war integrated with whites up until the War of 1812. They would not fight in integrated units again until the Korean War.[1] During the Civil War, Blacks enlisted in large numbers. They were mostly enslaved blacks who escaped in the South, although there were many northern black Unionists as well. More than 180,000 blacks served with the Union Army and Navy during the Civil War, in segregated units known as the US Colored Troops, under the command of white officers.[2] They were recorded and are part of the National Park Service's Civil War Soldiers & Sailors System (CWSS).— Les Ismore
- "As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery." Abraham Lincoln 1862.........."We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people....I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment....My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others. And we will prevail." George W. Bush 2003. SEEMS TO ME, BASED ON THESE STATEMENTS, THAT GEORGE W. BUSH WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH BRINGING LIBERTY TO AN OPPRESSED PEOPLE THAN LINCOLN WAS.— bird11
- So Abe sent hundreds of thousands to die cause he didn't want to lose tax revenue?— RG
- "We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people" - bird, seriously, do you believe his speechwriters words here? Remember how we were going to use Iraq oil revenues to pay for the $80 billion dollar price tag of the war? Wow, $80B....seems like chump change after all we really spent and are spending on a monthly basis.— Les Ismore
- "So Abe sent hundreds of thousands to die cause he didn't want to lose tax revenue?" What would Ronald RayGun think of that?— Les Ismore
- "What would Ronald RayGun think of that?" You'd have to ask him.— RG
- "Wow, $80B....seems like chump change after all we really spent and are spending on a monthly basis." This may come as a shock to you, but government is pretty poor at predicting future costs.— RG
- Les you know if you actually showed more manners you might be taken more seriously , as it is your a moron. You are like a little child , add stupid add ons to peoples user names how very adult of you, then have the gall to call other people trolls , get a life sad sack.— PAEnglish
- I digress , isnt it also true black union soldiers suffered far higher casulty rates than white units ? proving perhaps the north simply used them as cannon fodder. Also the emancipation proclomation was also a political move as there was concern Britain which needed southern cotton would send troops to fight alongside the south. As Britain had made slavery illegal that was a way to prevent Britain sending the redcoats and more importantly the Royal Navy.— PAEnglish
- PASpanglish - Oh wait, after you and your regressive friends call everyone on this blog by your own little cute name??? You keep forgetting that I am a failed graduate student. Get off your high horse and go back to Glenn Beck...moron...— Les Ismore
"You'd have to ask him." I say we dig him up and have 'm bronzed.— Hamlet- "I say we dig him up and have 'm bronzed." Of course you do, you're a tax and spend liberal.— RG
- "This may come as a shock to you, but government is pretty poor at predicting future costs." But to be off by a factor of 8,000 is pretty sad...kind of like those WMDs...oh wait, I think we found one?...no, never mind.— Les Ismore
- Les, if you subscribe to the TPS school you shouldn't believe anything any politician says. The purpose of my posting wasn't to debate the Iraq War or the truthyness of politicians but to show that while Bush clearly stated that liberating Iraqi citizens was a goal, Lincoln clearly stated that ending slavery was not the purpose of the War of Northern Aggression. Yet today, people talk reverently about Lincoln freeing the slaves but anyone who believes the success or failure of Iraq can only be judged if or when democracy takes hold in Iraq is called a toady.— bird11
- How about we dig him up and make up stories about him like he cut taxes or shrunk the size of government.— Les Ismore
- "How about we dig him up and make up stories about him like he cut taxes or shrunk the size of government." If trashign the dead to further your partisan agenda is what you're into, then have at it.— RG
- bird, you are right about Lincoln. I wasnt suggesting that was not his reasoning. I apologize to you if that was implied. But I will never waiver from my view that Iraq was a $1,000,000,000 waste of our treasury but more importantly, some of the finest men and women who have ever served this country. It doesnt matter if democracy takes hold in Iraq. Democracy took hold in many places without us intervening.— Les Ismore
- "PASpanglish - Oh wait, after you and your regressive friends call everyone on this blog by your own little cute name??? You keep forgetting that I am a failed graduate student." Must've failed the course titled "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right". Or, as I'm sure Tps will soon scold you with a "Mommy mommy they did it fiiiiirrrrrst" rejoinder.— legatus
- Les, being aware of your personal loss during the war I respect your feelings and opinions while still disagreeing with you. I pray often that we are doing the right thing in both Iraq and Afghanistan because of the great young men and women making that sacrifice - those prayers have become more intense since my young cousin was deployed to Afghanistan in January. (and your nephew will always be remembered in those prayers)— bird11
- RG, he almost doubled payroll taxes during his tenure, we can afford it.— Hamlet
- "If trashign the dead to further your partisan agenda is what you're into, then have at it." I nominate this post for the best (read funniest) post of the week. Has Will given that prize yet?— Les Ismore
- Dunno Les you will have to cut and paste an example of where I do that............................................................. oh wait there isnt any ,the troll is just generalizing about anybody who doesnt agree with his far left beliefs.— PAEnglish
- bird, Good luck and God speed to your cousin and his brothers and sisters over there. These young men and women, are truly the finest we have to offer; volunteers, every one of them. I know your cousin will do your family and country proud.— Les Ismore
- PaSpanglish, I wont do yoru homework for you but a couple of days ago you let into someone in a way that would make a sailor blush. Stay classy.— Les Ismore
- "RG, he almost doubled payroll taxes during his tenure, we can afford it." To cover for the gaping hole in SS, another unsustainable social program.— RG
- "Stay classy." Coming from the person who wants to dig up dead people.— RG
- I wont do yoru homework for you but a couple of days ago you let into someone in a way that would make a sailor blush. Stay classy. ............. still waiting troll , put up or shut up.— PAEnglish
- "I wont do your homework for you" Spelling corrected.— Les Ismore
- Hey Les, have you figured out how Japan balanced their budget yet still managed to run up debt twice the size of their GDP? Or have you entertained the more rational thought that stimulus spending may not work?— RG
- "have you figured out how Japan balanced their budget yet still managed to run up debt twice the size of their GDP?" No, because the TRIED to balance their budget, they didnt do it. That alone was enough to stray from the proper road to recovery as you well know.— Les Ismore
- Hey RG, can you explain why you think Japan is so relevent to us today when they did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what President Obama is doing?— Les Ismore
- "No, because the TRIED to balance their budget, they didnt do it. That alone was enough to stray from the proper road to recovery as you well know." Oh, this is brillaint. So they mentioned they might balance their budget, but instead still ran a deficit, which is the basis of a stimulus program, and yet this is the reason the stimulus didn't work. Thanks for clearing this up.— RG
- "can you explain why you think Japan is so relevent to us today when they did the EXACT OPPOSITE of what President Obama is doing?" Lets see, they kept interests rates at zero, they gave money to banks that made bad decisions, they ran large deficits and increased the natioanl debt. Yeah, Obama's doing the exact opposite alright. Stimulus supporters are so predictable. When it doesn't work, claim it was too small or implememted wrong, or wasn't given enough time.— RG
- "When it doesn't work, claim it was too small or implememted wrong, or wasn't given enough time." Well, it was too small but still, we had the largest increase in jobs in over 3 years last month. And of course you know that the Bush years were like Americas Lost Generation. 8 years and ZERO real job growth! That is ZERO is in goose egg, nada, nothing.Thank you President Bush, the MBA President!— Les Ismore
- "8 years and ZERO real job growth!" I thought you were just arguing that budget deficits create jobs?— RG
- "I thought you were just arguing that budget deficits create jobs?" What have you been smokin' RG?— Les Ismore
- "To cover for the gaping hole in SS, another unsustainable social program." You mean that those extra payroll taxes did not go into the general treasury to cover for his massive tax breaks to the rich? There really is a SS fund with real money in it? Then please accept my apology, RG, I must have been wrong.— Hamlet
- "it was too small"...God, if I only had a dollar for everytime I heard that.— bird11
- Comment removed.
- "There really is a SS fund with real money in it?" Wait are you arguing that Reagan raised taxes to cover for lowering them? Past that bit of incoherence, it was LBJ who merged SS into the general budget, allowing for its subsequent raiding (probably to cover for his Great Society nonsense).— RG
- "What have you been smokin' RG?" Every time I point out Obama's massive deficits, you claim that is standard fiscal policy to create jobs. Well, Bush ran deficits yet didn't create jobs.— RG
- Miss who?— junethe4th
- Ah. OK. Now I understand why the Governor of Virginia has created the "Confederate History Month." --snip-- Facing a storm of criticism, even from the newspaper that endorsed him for Governor, Virginia Republican Bob McDonnell told the Washington Post today that the reason why he didn’t mention slavery in his proclamation of “Confederate History Month” was because he doesn’t consider it a significant aspect of the Civil War. Wow. McDonnell said he did not include a reference to slavery because “there were any number of aspects to that conflict between the states. Obviously, it involved slavery. It involved other issues. But I focused on the ones I thought were most significant for Virginia.” --snip-- Hmmmm. The issue of slavery wasn't significant for Virginia. Well, at least if you weren't one of the 1/2 million slaves in Virginia, that is. But, you know, as RG demonstrated with his statistics on literacy rates prior to the Civil War - blacks and slaves don't count when you're evaluating statistics.— Talking point sleuth
- "Every time I point out Obama's massive deficits, you claim that is standard fiscal policy to create jobs. Well, Bush ran deficits yet didn't create jobs." Obama's deficit is from the stimulus bill that creates jobs. Bush's massive deficits were from accounting tricks that kept things off the books like a $1,000,000,000 running bill for Iraq and Afghanistan and the massive entitlement called Medicare Part D. Big difference RG. You got it now?— Les Ismore
- left off a set of 0's, that is $1,000,000,000,000 as in TRILLION— Les Ismore
- When will the Regressive leadership come out and repudiate, unequivocally this time, the violence their followers are threatening to the Democrats who voted on a bill that they said they would vote on during the campaign. It is time for Boehner, Beck, Limpaugh and Palin to come out and say "enough is enough, we didnt really mean it" unless of course their purpose was to whip up the wingnuts to this unAmerican extreme.— Les Ismore
- Comment removed.
- "Big difference RG. You got it now?" No, i don't, since Obama still hasn't funded either war or Medicare D, and has actually added more spending that has did nothing to keep ue from reaching 10%.— RG
- To answer bird11's questions about the North in the Civil War, to wit: "Why would a bunch of racist northerners risk their lives to free people they hated?" The short answer is that you're right - most Northerners fought not to end slavery, but to preserve the Union, hence the New York City draft riots in 1863. However, Lincoln saw emancipation as the expedient move if he was to win the war, hence his issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862 after the Northern victory at Antietam (NOT after Gettysburg -- you missed that one, PAEnglish). However, as I said at some length in my last post (if it passes the censors), the South did indeed fight for the defense of slavery and they seceded in the first place because they saw such a radical move as the only means of preserving slavery. In other words, the South's desire to preserve slavery led them to secession and the North's desire to oppose secession led them to destroy slavery. And I'll tell you this: as a black man in America looking back at these two morally ambiguous governments I think I'll prefer to commemorate the side that ended up freeing the slaves in spite of itself.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Now to speak to more current concerns: RG would like to know what the difference is between Bush deficits and Obama deficits in terms of job creation. It's like this: deficits associated with the employment of the American people on public works projects create jobs and encourage aggregate demand (the truly important variable in the economy despite the past thirty years of supply-side heresy) while renewing and extending our public infrastructure. Deficits associated with defense (offense?) spending also create jobs at defense contractors and the like, but it only works in any real sort of way when you REALLY want it. I'm talking like all-in, WWII-era, ration-eggs-and-gasoline, take-over-the-railroads defense spending, not half-a**ed "War" on Terror, let's-keep-all-the-shoppers-at-the-mall defense spending. The latter is what Bush gave us and somehow I don't think that the former is really what RG would like to see.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- And since I see that my post about the Confederacy did not, in fact, pass the censors, let me give a summarized version. George Tomeszko claims that secession was not primarily about slavery. He's wrong. Confederate VP Alexander Stephens said straight-out that their new government was founded on the inequality of the races and the moral rectitude of slavery and it was folks of his ilk - the slave-owning planter class - that was running the show in the South. It's true that a whole lot of much less affluent Southerners were sure enough that they had a dog in that fight to enlist and fight and die under Lee and Jackson, but a sizable group also saw no reason to fight and die for the rich men and their slaves. Stephens also argued that the new Confederacy would never use tariffs to elevate one section of society at the expense of another. Modern-day Tea Partiers would love that statement, disingenuous though it is given that the Confederacy was designed from first to last for the preservation of the Southern status quo with all political and economic privileges to remain firmly in the hands of the planters.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "and encourage aggregate demand (the truly important variable in the economy" Spending does not lead to prosperity, especially when you have to borrow to do so. Savings and capital accumulation/investment is what leads to prosperity. Japan spent tons on infrastructure and public works and their economy is still sluggish.— RG
- "Spending does not lead to prosperity, especially when you have to borrow to do so. Savings and capital accumulation/investment is what leads to prosperity." No one saves, no one invests, and capital does not accumulate when there is no one to buy capital's products. When capital is not sufficiently employing people's labor (as it unarguably has not for the past two years), they will not turn around and buy its products. The idea behind government stimuli is to break this vicious cycle with a one-time jolt to aggregate demand, thus giving the virtuous cycle by which consumer demand and capital supply support each other a chance to reestablish itself. It is, however, demand which must first call forth supply. Say's Law gets it exactly backwards. All this, of course, is leaving aside the role which the government must play in what the antebellum folk called "internal improvements."— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Obama... has actually added more spending that has did nothing to keep us from reaching 10%." Seems plausible to me that what Obama has done may have had something to do with keeping us from reaching 25%. Which is what the unemployment rate reached in the last year of the Hoover Administration. When trying to assign blame for how bad things already are, it is well to remember how much worse they actually could be.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "The idea behind government stimuli is to break this vicious cycle with a one-time jolt to aggregate demand," Then why did a decade of jolting not work in the GD? How bout two decades worth in Japan? We're through two stimulus' and a jobs bill and still no jolt. Says Law and the Austrians have it right, you are wrong.— RG
- "when there is no one to buy capital's products." Products cannot be made without savings and capital accumulation. They do not magically appear. Unless you have a credit based economy, and when the credit runs dry, the debt cannot be paid back, and consumers, who lack savings, cannot buy your products. Then a wave of bankruptcies washes out the firms and consumers with weak cash positions and heavy debt loads.— RG
- "Seems plausible to me that what Obama has done may have had something to do with keeping us from reaching 25%." The stimulus was sold to the people as necessary to keep ue under 8%. Once again, those who would shackle you with debt are wrong.— RG
- I just realized something. Montani doesn't know what "inane" means. I should have kept my comment to a 4th grade reading level so montani didn't find it inane. I guess the idea that our nations history is being sanitized to make us feel warm and fuzzy is 1. Empty, insubstantial 2. Lacking significance. Is that how you feel Montani? I expect as much. West Virginia has long been a bastion of deep thought.— pjsz1261
- "The stimulus was sold to the people as necessary to keep ue under 8%." So? "Unless you have a credit based economy, and when the credit runs dry, the debt cannot be paid back, and consumers, who lack savings, cannot buy your products." Explain to me what that means if it doesn't mean that we shut down the banking sector entirely and let only those with savings start businesses. "We're through two stimulus' and a jobs bill and still no jolt." Did you get the memo that the economy is currently expanding? BTW, why was I seeing articles a few months back saying that employers didn't want the payroll tax holidays then being proposed by Obama and a number of senators because tax relief would do little to encourage them to hire people until they knew that there would be enough demand to make hiring worthwhile?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Confidential to pjsz1261: There's a large difference between having the Confederacy in school history textbooks and proclaiming a state observance in honor of the Confederacy. I think that your non-recognition of this fact is what led montani to label your initial post "inane." Doubling down on said inanity has not helped your cause.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Explain to me what that means if it doesn't mean that we shut down the banking sector entirely and let only those with savings start businesses" Healthy banks will continue to exist, those that were foolish will fail. The sun will still rise. "Did you get the memo that the economy is currently expanding?" So we needed to spend a trillion plus dollars to create !20k jobs nearly 12 months after the fact? The housing market is still heavily subsidized, so are parts of the banking finance sector, and two of the auto makers. How long do you propose we take future money to feed these zombies?— RG
- "There's a large difference between having the Confederacy in school history textbooks and proclaiming a state observance in honor of the Confederacy." Yeah, the latter can be ignored, it is nothing but a symbolic gesture. The former is taught to all students.— RG
- "Yeah, the latter can be ignored, it is nothing but a symbolic gesture. The former is taught to all students." I think not. The former means people are at least ostensibly learning about our nation's history, of which the Confederacy is an important if arguably morally suspect part. The latter means that your state government is saying on your behalf "The Confederacy was a good thing."— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "The latter means that your state government is saying on your behalf "The Confederacy was a good thing."" Tough luck, thems the breaks with democracy.— RG
- "Healthy banks will continue to exist, those that were foolish will fail. The sun will still rise." My comment wasn't focused on the banks; it was about the businesses they lend to. Your statement seemed to suggest that no one, including entrepreneurs, should ever spend money that they haven't already saved up - in other words, that all businesses should be capitalized with equity only and no debt. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your statement, which otherwise seems to go against at least 2,000 years of business practice. "The housing market is still heavily subsidized, so are parts of the banking finance sector, and two of the auto makers. How long do you propose we take future money to feed these zombies?" I'm not a fan of propping up Detroit. I wasn't a fan of the bank bailout, though I understood why it had to happen; my big concern now is that now that the banks have got the carrot of bailout funding they might not get the stick of meaningful regulation. I do happen to be a fan of having non-crumbling infrastructure, even if it means that (horrors!) the Feds have to pay people to fix it. Hell, let's even build a few new roads, railroads, airports, whatever. I'm sure entrepreneurial minds will find ways to profit by them and employ American workers in the process.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Tough luck, thems the breaks with democracy." Careful, RG. "Throw the bums out in November" is a double-edged sword of a sentiment. BTW, the Washington Post is now reporting that Virginia's Governor McDonnell has added language to his proclamation. The article says that "A day earlier, McDonnell said he left out any reference to slavery in the original seven-paragraph proclamation because he wanted to include issues he thought were most "significant" to Virginia." Where was he when he was supposed to be studying history?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Your statement seemed to suggest that no one, including entrepreneurs, should ever spend money that they haven't already saved up" Some people save, others borrow, and invest. They produce a product, pay back the loan, and the saver now has disposable income to purchase products. Look at the debt levels at the state, federal, biz, and individual level and tell me if they are sustainable. Cheap credit has created a bubble economy. "they might not get the stick of meaningful regulation" They were never going to get the stick. Ask yourself about the revolving door between GS and the Fed/Treasury. Or why GS CEO was at the bailout meetings with AIG. The government is compliant with this scam.— RG
- "Careful, RG. "Throw the bums out in November" is a double-edged sword of a sentiment" I dont care about November. It is you who touts the wonders of democracy from one side of the mouth while complaining about its outcomes from the other. I find it amusing that you are so upset that the gov "said" something on behalf of the people of VA, but seem to be ok with the federal gov going into massive hock in our names.— RG
- "Look at the debt levels at the state, federal, biz, and individual level and tell me if they are sustainable." You're not going to get any argument from me that people have overspent their means by a long ways. We're going to have to collectively (ack!) rediscover the virtue of frugality and hopefully force our economy to readjust to that new reality. That said, I don't see governmental balance sheets improving anytime soon if by lack of action they allow the economy to remain moribund. I know, I know: government spending never employed anyone, creative destruction drives the economy forward, and so on and so forth. On those points I fear we can only agree to disagree, but at least for the time being our president and a majority of our lawmakers are more in agreement with me than with you. As someone once said, "Tough luck, them's the breaks with democracy."— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- In a democracy such as ours, people have the right to their opinion and people have the right to voice that opinion freely within the limits imposed by public safety. You know, kind of like you and I do here all the time. And it seems that in this case the free expression of many people's opinions has caused the governor of Virginia to reconsider his actions. Score one for democracy, and I'll see you in November. Or perhaps not.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "We're going to have to collectively (ack!) rediscover the virtue of frugality and hopefully force our economy to readjust to that new reality." This contradicts the idea of spending to return to prosperity.— RG
- "has caused the governor of Virginia to reconsider his actions" A flip flopping politician, what a shock. "and I'll see you in November. Or perhaps not." You won't.— RG
- "This contradicts the idea of spending to return to prosperity." Only for the sort of thinker who sees everything in blacks and whites, rhetorically speaking. Extreme frugality would be disastrous for our economy. So would extreme prodigality. You'd like to label Obama's economic policy with the latter tag. I disagree; I think it's the right thing to do in order to restore an environment in which wise frugality can reap rewards. But as a wise man once said back in the 60s (actually, back in the 960s BC or thereabouts): "To everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven." The real wisdom is in knowing when that time is. I would humbly suggest that now's the time for stimulus spending to get us back on track.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- Is your statement that I won't see you in November a reflection of the probability that we live in different precincts or a reflection on your current level of faith in American-style democracy?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Extreme frugality would be disastrous for our economy." Yes, people not living paycheck to paycheck would certainly be the end of civilization. "I think it's the right thing to do" I'm glad you "think" it is the right thing to do, but have you thought about the consequences if it isn't? Once again, the GD lasted over a decade, Japan is on its 2nd lost decade. What will it take for you to question your faith in a bunch of central planners to spend the citizenries money?— RG
- I'll abstain from voting. It is two sides to the same coin, and voting for the lesser of two evils, is still endorsing evil.— RG
- "What will it take for you to question your faith in a bunch of central planners to spend the citizenries money?" Again with the black-and-white thinking. I don't have complete faith in the government to make all the spending decisions any more than I have complete faith in private consumers, businesses, or corporations to do so. Both the public and the private sectors have a role. Both are fallible. Neither should dominate. Atlas is no easier a master than Leviathan is, as you would find out in any sort of world where Leviathan could be drowned in the bathtub.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "I'm glad you "think" it is the right thing to do, but have you thought about the consequences if it isn't?" This time I'll quote Rush (not Limbaugh): "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Neither should dominate" One is $14 tril in debt and continues growing unabated. I'd say its dominating.— RG
- "The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners -- households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 -- paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government." Welcome to the welfare state. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0— RG
- "The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment."— RG
- "The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone." One might argue that the highest earners derive the greatest benefit, even if they are not direct users of said programs. Most of their workers are educated by the public system, for example (though here in Philadelphia that opens up an entirely different can of worms that I haven't the stomach for just now). Our military protects their property from despoliation by enemies foreign and domestic, as do our public safety systems. As for the infrastructure, use your imagination. Do I think that high earners should enjoy some reward for having the intelligence and chutzpah to figure out ways of benefiting from these categories of public expenditure? Certainly - and yet their simple ability to pay more for these necessary expenditures means that they should pay more by some amount. I'm not looking for Eisenhower-era taxation, but if these programs are necessary, why would you want to pay for them by reaching so deeply into the pockets of all the folks working hard for peanuts? What would you expect to find there except peanuts?— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- ---}}} I find it amusing that you are so upset that the gov "said" something on behalf of the people of VA, {{{--- Right, RG. It is completely irrelevant that the Governor of Virginia is pandering to racist neo-Confederates. LOL! You're hilarious.— Talking point sleuth
- More about the neo-Confederate historical revisionism - that RG keeps trying to pretend is insignificant: A nice reference to debunk Georgie's myth about black Confederate solders. Some highlights: --snip-- On Feb. 10, 1863 the Confederate House of Representatives resolves that "the enlistment of n_ groes as soldiers" is against the constitution of the Confederate States. The Confederate Senate April 30, 1863 passed a resolution that white officers of American black troops, or any white person involved at all in preparing them to be soldiers, should be put to death if captured....In both resolutions of the Confederate Senate on April 30, 1863 and the Confederate House on May 1st, condemn "to employ n_ egroes in war against the Confederate States" as "inconsistent with the spirit of those usages which in modern warfare prevail among civilized nations," and a "violation of the laws or usages of war among civilized nations." In short to use black troops was a war crime in the minds of the members of the Confederate congress. This is an accusation that can be made only if you are not using black troops yourself. --snip-- http://web.archive.org/web/20040805062842/templeofdemocracy.com/BlackConfed.htm— Talking point sleuth
- Man, this filter is a pain. I need to break this one up: More about the neo-Confederate historical revisionism - that RG keeps trying to pretend is insignificant: A nice reference to debunk Georgie's myth about black Confederate solders. Some highlights: --snip-- On Feb. 10, 1863 the Confederate House of Representatives resolves that "the enlistment of n_ groes as soldiers" is against the constitution of the Confederate States. http://web.archive.org/web/20040805062842/templeofdemocracy.com/BlackConfed.htm— Talking point sleuth
- Man, this filter is a pain. I need to break this one up: More about the neo-Confederate historical revisionism - that RG keeps trying to pretend is insignificant: A nice reference to debunk Georgie's myth about black Confederate solders. Some highlights: --snip-- On Feb. 10, 1863 the Confederate House of Representatives resolves that "the enlistment of n_e_g_r_o_e_s as soldiers" is against the constitution of the Confederate States. The Confederate Senate April 30, 1863 passed a resolution that white officers of American black troops, or any white person involved at all in preparing them to be soldiers, should be put to death if captured....In both resolutions of the Confederate Senate on April 30, 1863 and the Confederate House on May 1st, condemn "to employ n_e_g_r_o_e_s in war against the Confederate States" as "inconsistent with the spirit of those usages which in modern warfare prevail among civilized nations," and a "violation of the laws or usages of war among civilized nations." In short to use black troops was a war crime in the minds of the members of the Confederate congress. This is an accusation that can be made only if you are not using black troops yourself. http://web.archive.org/web/20040805062842/templeofdemocracy.com/BlackConfed.htm— Talking point sleuth
- Ooops. Well, it was worth reposting multiple times, anyway.— Talking point sleuth
- "One is $14 tril in debt and continues growing unabated. I'd say its dominating." The dollar size of the debt isn't really the relevant measure of whether the federal government is "dominating" our political economy, though the ratio of debt to GDP may go some ways to answering that question. Assuming that it does, the fact that said ratio is now 87% is a matter of some distress to me, but I remain hopeful that the incipient revival of the U.S. economy will soon amend matters.— Billy Ray Winthorpe
- "Wait are you arguing that Reagan raised taxes to cover for lowering them?" Yes.— Hamlet
- "the fact that said ratio is now 87% is a matter of some distress to me, but I remain hopeful that the incipient revival of the U.S. economy will soon amend matters." Maybe you should apy attention to those who you put so much faith in. Geithner, Bernanke, et al are all calling for a jobless recovery. The economy will need to add 300k jobs per month for 5 years to get us back to where we were. Good luck with that. Meanwhile, the debt to GDP level is reaching the area where countries either stop lending to you, or ask for much higher interest rates.— RG
- "It is completely irrelevant that the Governor of Virginia is pandering to racist neo-Confederates" He was elected, wasn't he?— RG
1
Popular Posts