151 Years Ago Today – Republicans Freed the Slaves

Still fighting for tax cuts. You still taking more and more right? No end in sight to what you want if you can get it?

How is your war on poverty going? Massive and unmitigated failure?

 

Exactly. 150 years ago the were fighting for the poor and oppressed. Now they just fight for the 1%.

It was going great until someone sold us "trickle down" as a great policy for America.

 

LOL. Some people are such tools of the left...

- - - Updated - - -

How would this have happened?

 

I did hear a story that the total wealth redistribution that has taken place since LBJ's "Great Society" exceeds 8 trillion dollars.

It is time to stop this unconstitutional theft.

>>>MOD EDIT: INSULT<<<

 

Could you please back up your assertion and link to quotes he wrote upon which you claim he is a racist, as you have accused? I haven't seen them at your accusation seems out of character to my experience.

Thank you.

 

More people left poverty under Reagan then carter. Personal median income went up. Labor force participation up. What are you talking about? I think you are referring to the "economy built to last". Hopefully just not too much longer.

 

Thank you, for recognizing the good character that I try to exude overall.

I love people. Racism, the kind of thing where someone holds their self more highly above another... isn't something I'm into. I think it is both stupid and evil.

Now, I'm going to give misveritis an opportunity to explain what he has said about me, before I decide to REPORT him.

Again, thanks for noticing the truth.

 

Check your facts:

Poverty rate
1988...... 13.0
1987 7/... 13.4
1986...... 13.6
1985 ..... 14.0
1984...... 14.4
1983 6/... 15.2
1982...... 15.0
1981 5/... 14.0
1980...... 13.0

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov2.xls

Poverty rates were higher under Reagan.

Year - Family median income
1988 60,038
1987 59,880
1986 58,881
1985 56,441
1984 55,638
1983 53,856
1982 53,534
1981 54,233
1980 55,775
1979 57,734
1978 56,975
1977 55,253
1976 54,884

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/2012/F06AR_2012.xls

Median incomes declined in the 1980-82 recession under both Carter and Reagan, though for Carter, median income was higher after his first term than the year before he took office. That was not true with Reagan, who saw median incomes lower after his first term.

But Reagan had a strong middle class and dumped a huge amount of stimulus spending and tax cuts into the economy, at the expense of a quadrupled debt by 1992.

But here's what I'm talking about:

 

Anyone with half a brain would know that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves with in United States, not just the South. Buchanan attempted to maintain the status quo for slavery and failed, thus setting up the secession of the Southern States and the Civil War.

 

Use eminent domain to seize slaves while paying the market price to their owners as compensation. It would have cost roughly a 3rd of what the Civil War did with no loss of life.

 

No. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in areas of the United States in rebellion against the government. Slavery was still legal in places like Maryland until the 13th. You are completely wrong on this.

 

Median income went up. Also you are using household income you need to switch to personal income. You also need to use personal poverty rate not households in poverty.

Divorce and broken families skew your stats on the poverty measure. Even then, the household median income rate grew 10%.

What huge Reagan stimulus? His spending bump had to do with raising the interest rate and you know it. Not a stimulus like we have now designed to keep it artificially low because this debt burden at high interest would bankrupt us.

Also, you are still into racial discrimination.

 

Who knew that people with half a brain were so ignorant of history?

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, to all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion. ... The Proclamation applied in the ten states that were still in rebellion in 1863, and thus did not cover the nearly 500,000 slaves in the slave-holding border states (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland or Delaware) which were Union states &#8212; those slaves were freed by separate state and federal actions.

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

 

WRONG!!!!!

the Emancipation Proclamation left almost a million Africans in bondage in the non-CSA states.

you have made a MAJOR FAIL

 

Then please back up your assertion with links to personal median income and personal poverty rates.

What stimulus? Compare:

Stimulus:

Reagan
Spending increase, 1981-1985: +39.5%.

Austerity:

Obama
Spending increase, 2009-2013: -1.89%

What are you talking about?

???

 

you're joking, right?

spending for FY 2008 was $2.9 trillion.

spending for FY 2013 was $3.45 trillion.

comparing spending for 2013 to 2009, the year of the massive stimulus plan, to suggest that Obama has actually decreased spending, is pretty dishonest.

 

You can post the personal vs household levels if you want. I know what they are. I went through this with you one day, got all the links you wanted and you didnt care.

Personal median income went up under Reagan.

Obama spending pretends TARP was an annual thing. You know this, and pretend it isnt to be dishonest, and you also pretend Obama and the Democrats didnt preside over the budgets Obama inherited.

What would be the effect of the interest rates Reagan was working with applied to the current debt problem? Let me know. Lets see what that would do to spending levels.

- - - Updated - - -

Because he had no power over those areas like he did occupied territory in a war. Same people passed the 13th Amendment, and that will not change.

 

Im a social-democrat who proudly voted for Obama twice, but even I know that this is BS

 

don't recall that, but if you can't back up your claims, maybe it impresses others.

Not in his first term. Unlike Carter.

But as I pointed out, run a huge stimulus and run up the debt like Reagan did, and you can boost median income, in spite of other policies.

Tarp was a one time expenditure and paid back the next year.

Spending in 2013 was lower than it was in 2009.

Who cares? Reagan inherited a debt that was proportionately the lowest in post war history, less then half of what Obama inherited. Interest on the debt was a miniscule part of the budget and certainly isn't what drove spending under Reagan. Military buildups and "star wars" did.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). He had the power to suspend habeas corpus.

 

Wow. That's from 1866. Got anything from, say, this century?

Again, it's been the Democrats leading the war against oppression of black people for the past 150 years.

 

Slavery became uncommon and largely unacceptable in the North during antebellum. The North is where slaves went to escape the slavery of the south (slave states). You can try to portray slavery in the North as being as prevalent as slavery in the South, but you will fail. You may want to try a different dishonest tactic.

Also, just in case, Democrats led the passing of civil rights legislation, and everyone knows it, so that one doesn't work either. Southern Republicans sure were successful in creating segregation laws, however.

Also, the Dixiecrats were not true Democrats or representative of most Democrats -- and they didn't last long.

No matter how you look at it it seems as if Democrats have done far more than Republicans to help racial minorities in the past 50 years.

 

Putting aside that fact that 95% of spending was already locked in before Obama took office in the worst recession in the last century, why is it dishonest to show that over the past four years spending has decreased by 2%, which is unprecedented in modern history, and that in the equivalent time period, it increased 40% under Reagan?

The fact that the facts don't comport to your mythological view of Reagan and RW propaganda deceived view of Obama does not make them "dishonest".

But if you want to compare the prior year of their presidency, fair enough:

Reagan
Spending increase, 1980-1985: +60.2%.

Obama
Spending increase, 2008-2013: +15.8%%

Reagan still has vastly greater stimulus spending, and as I've proved above, in the last four years it was vast spending expansion under Reagan and austerity under Obama.

Sorry the facts don't comport to your ideologically driven worldview. But again, it doesn't make them dishonest.

 

Haven't you noticed that he brings up race on nearly every issue? Leftism-racism seem to have an unusual affinity. Beyond that, no. I won't rise to the useless exercise. Now that you are on notice, simply observe him and see for yourself. He will be unable to help himself.

 

Report me. It will not change your heart. You know that you bring up race in nearly every discussion. Only a racist does that.