Democrats live for several things: abortion on demand (well, the babies don’t live), fomenting division, false narratives, fear-mongering, and race-baiting. These pretty much allow them to avoid discussing their damaging policies. Here’s another interesting example from Mother Jones
Republicans Tried to Suppress the Black Vote in North Carolina. It’s Not Working.
Thousands more African-Americans have already turned out to vote this year than in 2010. Here’s how Democrats are doing it.
In essence, Mother Jones is race-baiting while admitting that Democrat hysteria about disenfranchising Black voters over North Carolina’s new voter laws is a bunch of stinky mule fritters.
IN 2013, North Carolina Republicans, led by Hagan’s opponent, state house speaker Thom Tillis, passed a far-reaching voting law that curtails early voting and eliminates same-day registration. The Justice Department sued North Carolina over the law, charging it was discriminatory and would depress minority turnout.
Not mentioned is that the Justice Department lost, and lost badly. Also not mentioned is that North Carolina’s measures that kicked in this year are typically in line with a majority of the rest of the States. Many Democrat states are more restrictive than North Carolina. Doing away with same day registration? Most states do not allow it. No-excuse early voting? Again, most states did not allow before NC passed the legislation. Reducing the number of early voting days from 17 to 10? 33 States have early voting. The others don’t. North Carolina extended the hours and increased the polling places.
Strangely, again, all this seems to have failed to suppress the Black vote, as the Dem talking points said it would
As of Thursday, 24 percent of early voters in North Carolina were African-American, according to records from the state board of elections. That’s up from just 17 percent at the same point during the last midterm elections in 2010.
Huh. Interesting. Much of that is due to Kay Hagan’s ground game, along with far left groups, but this clearly shows that Blacks can, in fact, get out the vote. It also shows the patronizing way in which Democrats treat and think about Blacks.
Democrats have spent $1 million on ads aired on black radio stations. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee partnered with the Congressional Black Caucus this month to send black lawmakers on a bus tour through North Carolina and five other battleground states. And Hagan’s campaign is collaborating extensively with black clergy across the state and roughly 150 black small business owners like Smith who are helping turn out voters this year.
That ad was a serious bit of race-baiting, played exclusively on urban radio stations, which actually linked North Carolina’s new stand your ground law with the death of Trayvon Martin. There was also quite a bit of other shenanigans from Democrats along the race-baiting line.
Smith adds that anger over the August shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, will also bring people in her community out on Tuesday. “It was more than just him,” she notes, referring to the police brutality she witnesses regularly in her community. “You have some in the system that say, ‘I’m gonna hide behind this badge and use it for injustice instead of justice’…To us it feels like it’s racist.”
Um, OK. That being in a state hundreds of miles. But, we can see how Democrats have whipped up Blacks into a frenzy.
T-omnis Cox says he feels like a potential Michael Brown. A 23-year-old who works at a chicken plant in eastern North Carolina, he was hanging out in front of a corner liquor store in Goldsboro last Thursday evening. “It’s hard out here in the world,” he says. “Every day, we’re ducking from cops, we’re ducking from law.” Cox says he’s going to vote for Hagan because “Republicans don’t care about the poor.”
Again, interesting, since Democrats have controlled the General Assembly for most of the last 100 years, along with the Governors mansion. One would think they would be upset with Democrats, but, Dems do a wonderful job in brainwashing Blacks to get them to vote against their best interests. Namely, to get them to vote “D”.
In fact, almost 700,000 people voted early this year, which outpaced 2010 by tens of thousands, despite the shorted days. Perhaps one day Black voters will realize in bulk that they are being used be Democrats.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
That’s great news! More legal voters means more Democracy! Thom Tillis must be delighted, lol.
You typed about Dems “whipping Blacks into a frenzy” and “brainwashing Blacks”. This sort of thinking is endemic with conservatives.
Do you understand how insulting it is to Black Americans that you (and conservatives) believe we can be easily “whipped into a frenzy” and “brainwashed”?
Modern American conservatism is a white peoples’ movement, and minorities recognize this. They wisely do not buy the Republican message that cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, eliminating the minimum wage, raising taxes on the poor while cutting taxes on the wealthy and transferring more power to corporations is somehow in the best interests of the working poor.
[…] Surprisingly, Despite Those Evil Republicans, NC Blacks Are Voting In Great Numbers. […]
My my Jeffery, you have been brainwashed. By the way, Dems aren’t against voter ID laws because they disenfranchise Blacks- they are against voter ID because it curtails voting by illegals who, by and large, don’t have ID’s.
It’s also been proven that lowering taxes and getting rid of onerous regulation on the wealthy and corporations does provide more and better paying jobs. ( Have you ever been hired by a “poor” person?)
Why do you think more and more Blacks are leaving the Dem plantation for the freedom of the conservative message.
Mike,
I’ve been brainwashed yet it’s you that recite conservative talking points.
Are non-citizens voting in large numbers? Probably not, but a flawed ODU study breathed new life into this tired franchise. The same study states that Voter IDs will not solve the problem, if it exists. If you can come up with a system that insures that every legal voter can vote, and those not entitled to vote are excluded, you’ll find every Democrat on your side. It would not be that hard to accomplish.
So let’s discuss one of your claims. You pick which one.
1. Please show the evidence that proves that “lowering taxes and getting rid of regulation on the wealthy and corporations.. provides more and better paying jobs”.
2. Please show the evidence that “more and more Blacks are leaving the Democrats for the freedom of the conservative message.”
Thanks.
Says the person using the same tired old Dem talking points.
As far as voting…go back to paper ballots with photo ID. Any precinct that shows an anomaly of more than 1% gets thrown out. That will insure that election commissions police themselves accordingly.
There is significant job growth in South Carolina, Texas and North Dakota where unemployment is below the national average. But job growth in states like Michigan and Illinois are stagnant with Michigan having the 4th highest unemployment in the nation and Illinois being 49th in job growth.
SC, ND and Texas have republican governors while Michigan and Illinois have democrat governors. I’m seeing a trend here.
Conservatives,
Can we join together and force reform on our electoral systems?
How can we assure that all Americans entitled to vote have that option, while no one votes illegally?
Mike,
We think you chose your topic #1.
1. Please show the evidence that proves that “lowering taxes and getting rid of regulation on the wealthy and corporations.. provides more and better paying jobsâ€.
Instead of presenting evidence you chose to cherry pick a few states’ performance, but didn’t even use evidence from those states.
We can play that game too! Don’t you agree that the 50s were an absolute heyday of middle class income and well-paying jobs? Federal income taxes were very high, in fact, in 1950, income over $200,000 was taxed at 91%!!!! Did you know that? Union membership was at an all time high! Yet employment was high and incomes were high.
Recall the depressed economy that Reagan-Bush left us? In fact, the highest unemployment rate in modern times occurred during Mr. Reagan’s first term. The Reagan low tax and high spend policies nearly tripled the national debt! Bill Clinton pushed through tax increases, balanced the yearly budget and generated full employment! You probably don’t understand that full employment drives wages up (competition for workers and all that). Capitalists hate full employment.
Yet, although all true, nothing I cited is really evidence, just competing anecdotes.
Do you have evidence to support your claim or not? Or do you prefer to just trade anecdotes… fun but not satisfying.
Pardon me, I was wrong…Illinois is 45th in job growth http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-states-job-creators-1029-biz-20141028-story.html
North Dakota leads nation in job growth http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2014/08/18/north-dakota-leads-country-on-jobs-growth-labor-department/
That’s two pieces of evidence. You can do your own research and get the same answers.
Funny thing about those high tax rates of the 50’s…they were depressing the economy and unemployment was rising. Business profits were stagnant if not dropping and the stock market was depressed.
A democrat president, John F. Kennedy, lowered taxes and initiated tremendous growth in the US economy during his brief tenure as President. http://www.npr.org/2013/11/12/244772593/jfks-lasting-economic-legacy-lower-tax-rates
Reagan turned the economy around after the malaise of the Carter Presidency and Clinton was able to ride that wave throughout his eight years in office. George W. Bush kept it going until the housing crash, a crisis caused by democrats, by the way, because of their loosening of loan requirements…ie. making banks loan money to people who couldn’t afford to repay the loans.
How is it possible that the economy was stronger when the top tax rates were 70 to 92%?
Or do you Deny the data?
Post WWII we built the greatest nation in the history of nations with the largest middle class and the best infrastructure. That economic system seemed to benefit almost everyone (although we didn’t start to fully include Black Americans until the mid 60s).
In fact, wealthy conservatives can’t acknowledge it, but the system functions best when the wealthy are progressively taxed to support the working classes, who also happen to be doing all the work. We build infrastructure (roads, schools, energy grid, airports, bridges, ports, that support us all – rich and poor – and that benefits the economy), a strong military (to protect what we’ve built together), a fair justice system (again, protection), and a social safety net to protect the losers in a competitive system.
The modern conservative movement wants to destroy this successful “old” for two reasons: 1) They’ve been brainwashed to despise the working classes (which many believe they’re not a part of) and 2) They worship and fear the wealthy.
Of course the wealthy want to keep all the wealth they’ve accrued at the expense of the working classes.
The destruction of our middle class and hollowing out of America did not result from “natural” causes, but are the result of specific legislative policies. We have gutted labor unions, passed international trade treaties that send manufacturing jobs overseas; we neglect our infrastructure, and our Fed policies create unemployment to limit even modest inflation. Our fiscal policies during this latest depression were counterproductive and kept millions out of work for no good reason.
Mike,
We can do this all day. Did you not read what I wrote about trading anecdotes?
So we agree that a conservative Democratic President, Mr. Kennedy’s top rate of 70% was good for the nation. Good, let’s go back to that.
Mr. Reagan further cut taxes, causing a massive increase in deficit spending, nearly tripling the nation’s debt, proving that deficit spending can stimulate the economy. He and Mr. Volcker had ended the inflation triggered by the oil shocks of the 70s by intentionally causing a deep recession (unemployment over 10% for 10 months and over 9% for 19 months). But since that recession was Fed Reserve triggered, once inflation was whipped, lowering the interest rates stimulated the dormant economy. It was the right thing to do at the time – and very Keynesian. The lowest unemployment rate during Mr. Reagan’s debt dependent “great” economy was 5.3%.
Just think if we had tripled the debt during this recession like Mr. Reagan did in the 80s. Spending another 20,000,000,000,000 borrowed dollars (effective interest rate = 0%) on infrastructure and American citizens! Our GDP would be climbing, full employment, wages up, tax collections through the roof and we’d have a new energy grid and telecommunications grid. It would be the 50s all over again.
I’m sure you’re a good guy and all, but our complex economy is more than just top marginal tax rates. Supply side economics is as unsupported by evidence as cosmic-ray induced global warming.
Mike,
From one of your links:
The top marginal rate was dropped from 91% (1963; Unemploy = 5.7%) to 77% (1964; U = 5.2%) to 70% (1965; U = 4.5%). (from the BLS and the Tax Foundation – you can look it up yourself, touche)
Why do you attribute the modest drop in unemployment rate solely to taxes? According to you own “evidence” we also spent more on infrastructure construction, and put more spending money in the pockets of the working poor, the unemployed, and the retired. These actions have all been subsequently proven to be more effective at stimulating the economy than tax cuts for the wealthy.
Post WW2 when we had all those returning veterans who needed jobs and housing. The economy had started stagnating by the late 50’s, ergo JFK’s lower tax policies which reignited the economy.
As a conservative who is a working man, I believe in giving people a hand up, but I despise those who game the system for a hand out. Our veterans, the disabled, widows and the truly poor deserve our help and conservatives don’t begrudge that help. Unfortunately liberal politicians of both parties, in order to stay in office, promise to keep the gravy train going for those that are able to work, but choose not to. 99 weeks of unemployment?…really??
What are your unions doing for you now? Their fight for more wages, benefits and better pensions have bankrupted companies or made them send their factories overseas or to states which have right to work laws. Why do you think Boeing moved a factory to South Carolina?
Union pensions have bankrupted cities all over the country. Detroit is a prime example. General Motors had to be bailed out because of their onerous pension demands. The poor souls who owned stock in GM got the short end of that stick.
Our fiscal policies during this latest depression were counterproductive and kept millions out of work for no good reason.
So you’re saying this administration is to blame…and you’re right.
As far as inflation, the items that effect inflation the most, food and gas, aren’t even included in the CPI, which as you know, is how the government measures inflation. Food prices have been rising steadily. And although gas prices fluctuate with the price of oil, they never come back down as much as they went up. (Food prices can indirectly be attributed to the use of food products for the manufacture of Ethanol.)
Mike,
I don’t mean to be a dick after you have given in, but the original claim was that tax cuts lead to a good economy and that was never proven.
They can. Mr. Obama’s tax cuts for the working class certainly helped, but were also too little. Conservatives en masse opposed payroll tax relief unless they were linked to even more tax relief for the wealthy.
So we agree that if Mr. Obama had had the cajones to push through another 5 trillion in infrastructure spending and working class tax cuts (although it’s questionable he could have ever pushed it through) the economy would be in much better shape today. Did you favor significant spending at the depths of our depression? I did.
Most of conservative dogma on the economy is oversimplified and mostly wrong.
Every time a conservative is trapped on an economic question we get a, “yeah, but…”.
Economy was good in the 50s with 91% taxes… “Yeah, but soldiers blah blah blah”.
Economy improved when taxes went from 28 to 40%… “Yeah, but Reagan 10 years earlier, blah, blah, blah”.
Huge deficits in 80s and 2010s didn’t harm the economy or trigger inflation… “Yeah, but… gas and food.”
If tax cuts give consumers more buying power to satisfy demand, it stimulates an economy. Tax cuts that go into savings do little to stimulate unless there is a lack of capital (certainly not the case now).
This recession needed more spending money in the pockets of consumers. Unemployment benefits, low end tax cuts, and more jobs. The private sector was not creating jobs… in fact they were shaving 700,000 a month. We blew it. Democrats, Republicans… all of us.
The conservative mantra of cutting taxes for the wealthy and cutting spending would have made this recession much, much worse.
Sigh
Perhaps one day blacks in bulk will realize that Teach knows what is best for them
Teach were you pleased that these “far left groups” were encouraging people to vote ?
Would you consider donating to any to help them get out the black vote ?
And Mike,
On the NPR link explaining President Kennedy’s approach, did you read all the other actions taken and chose not to mention them in your argument or did you not read it and just take one of your conservative leader’s word for it.
Conservative followers refuse to recognize that their leaders lie to them daily.
Democrat followers refuse to recognize that their leaders lie to them daily.
Both sides lie to their constituents. I’ve found that conservative leaders lie less than your normal run of the mill politician. And not all republicans are conservative…they are what we call democrat lite. They are the ones who go along to get along as long as they can keep their seat at the table.
We have too much government. We want less.
Mike,
Please identify a Repubican liberal, lol.
J- “The conservative mantra of cutting taxes for the wealthy..” Don’t you tire of being wrong? First, all tax brackets were cut, not just the wealthy, so literally your own “mantra” is a lie. Second, the reality of it is that it’s actually a “tax cut for the people who pay all the taxes.” But that more apt description wouldn’t rile the low info Dem voters as much. Liberals act like this is some kind of class warfare when it’s simple math. If you cut the price of gas, who benefits the most? The people who buy the most in gas. If you you cut taxes, who benefits the most? The people who pay (buy) the most taxes. Sounds logical, right? Except to liberals. It’s the result of math, not evil conservatives. But back to J’s erroneous history lesson. In 1980 (top rate of 70%), the bottom 90% of wage earners paid 50.7% of income taxes. The top 1% paid 19% of all income taxes. In 2011 (most recent info I saw), the bottom 90% paid 31.7% of all taxes. The top 1%paid 35% of all income taxes. So contrary to J’s upside down view of history, the moral of the story is that as tax rates have gone down, the “rich” actually end up paying more, and the lower wage earners pay less. And again, contrary to the liberal mantra of “tax cuts for the wealthy”, it’s interesting to see the other side of the story. Refundable tax credits, that in many cases allow some to pay zero in taxes and almost exclusively go to low wage earners, went from 20 billion in 1990 to 100 billion in 2010.
J-“Mr. Reagan cut taxes, causing a massive increase in deficit spending.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. Cutting taxes doesn’t “cause” more spending. Spending more causes spending. Nice liberal try, though.
More slanted history buy our resident liberal. J-“Highest unemployment was during Reagan’s first term.” Not really. The way unemployment was figured changed in 1994, when numerous discouraged workers were removed from the official lists. If figured the same way, the highest rate would have been during the late 2000’s. Who was president then, I wonder?
Yeah, but,
As I said earlier… Highest unemployment during Reagan’s term… “Yean, but…blah, blah, blah.”
The 43rd excuse to cover up the horrid conservative record. Excuses, excuses…
Sadly, No. Do conservatives really believe their own BS? Tax cuts for the wealthy mean the wealthy pay MORE!
A town of 101. 100 make 100,000 and pay 5% each. 1%er Leo makes 1,000,000 and pays 10%. Total tax revenues are $500,000 + $100,000 = %600,000, with Leo paying 16.6% of the total tax revenue. (Leo’s takehome is $900,000)
The next year, the masses make no more but Leo doubles his income. The legislature cuts taxes across the board, cutting Leo’s taxes confiscatory tax rate to 7% and the masses to 3%. Total tax revenues are now $300,000 + $140,000 = $440,000, with poor Leo now paying almost 30% of the total tax revenue! ‘Yeah, but’ now claims that Leo’s taxes have actually increased! (Leo’s takehome is now $1.86 million).
What you did was to conflate tax rates with the proportion paid by a group.
Jeff,
I tried to review all your comments, basically you are wrong. You don’t have any facts straight and you lie about tax rates knowing full well that deductions lowered rates. Those deductions are not available now. As to Reagan’s program, lowering the taxes created a 20 year steady improvement in our economy. Certainly spending hurt, by the way, you desire for the government to spend more. But then you left out the fact that it was the Democrats that would not allow spending reductions along with the tax cuts. The fact is that you can not point to any communistic state like you desire that has thrived, all fail. Note that I am sure you think FDR had a great economy and that WWII pulled us out of the depression. Wrong. The depression did not end till about 1952 when the tax rate was reduced from 90 to 70%. Then the economy was only helped as it was the only economy left after WWII. Take a course in economics, you will learn something.
Jeffrey,
Why is it Black people are okay with being pandered to and basically being made to look utterly incompetent by politicians who state unequivocally that voter ID laws will disproportionately impact blacks? Are Black people really incapable of obtaining a free ID? Most of the Black people I know are not that incompetent, but maybe I’m just running in the wrong circles.
Nobody in the Republican party wants to cut SS or Medicare. Do you not realize that Obamacare states very clearly that over the next 10 years Obamacare will suck $45 billion from Medicare?? It’s the Dems that want to take from Medicare, in fact they’re doing it as we speak!
So instead of the Republican message you’re going to allow you Democratic masters to allow another 20 million low skilled workers into the country? That sounds like a bang up plan for black people.
dave,
Thanks for the sage advice. Does your information result from a course in economics that you completed?
Did they teach you the definition of “depression”? In the US, the Great Depression ended about 1940, not 1952.
You’re quite ignorant, and worse, unwilling to learn. The “tax rate” was NOT reduced to 70% in 1952. In fact, the top marginal rate in 1952 was 92%. Yeah, but… deductions.
Conservatives exist in a sea of mythology. Tax cuts increase revenues! Reagan was an economic genius! (Reagan and Volcker stopped inflation by raising interest rates and throwing millions of Americans out of work. Reagan cut income taxes, cut Social Security payments but increased Social Security taxes, creating a SS surplus. He increased military spending greatly. Cutting taxes and increasing spending leads to debt, and Mssrs Reagan and Bush increased the national debt nearly 3 fold. Deficit spending to that extent DOES stimulate the economy. And oh the corruption!)
Mike,
Why don’t you ask a Black person why they prefer Democrats to Repubicans?
NOBODY in the Repubican Party wants to cut SS or Medicare? Nobody? Read on:
The Repubican Budget Resolution, H. Con. Res. 96, which passed the House of Representatives on April 10, 2014, assumes the same Medicare savings that are included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This means that the 219 Members of Congress, including all but 12 Repubicans, who voted for it also voted for the billions in Medicare savings. However, they also voted to repeal all other provisions of the Affordable Care Act including the Medicare improvements.
$45 billion in Medicare savings over the next 10 years! That’s a big number. We’ll spend about $500 billion this year, and next and the next etc.
The Repubican Party will control the House and the Senate so we’ll see what kind of immigration bill they come up with. From what orifice did you pull your 20 million number?
Actually, it doesn’t Jeffery.
It puts limits on the growth of Medicare and included deficit neutral restrictions on spending. Contrast that with the ACA that does not have limits, and forces more people into Medicare because they cannot afford the plans mandated by the government.
It is amazing that people of your ilk who talk all the time about “choice” don’t want people to have any choices at all when it comes to insurance plans and costs.
J today sounds about as desperate as the NYT. J- “Yeah, but..the 43rd excuse to cover up the horrid..excuses, excuses.” My, J, even for you that’s a pretty lame rebuttal, even though you rebutted nothing. But, to be precise, please show me where anything I wrote is an “excuse”. Here on earth they’re called “facts”, and if you can refute anything I put forward about the worst unemployment being in the Obama administration rather than your fairytale about the Reagan administration, why go ahead. But you can’t, or you would have done it. J-“Why you did was conflate tax rates with the proportion paid by a group.” Says the rocket scientist who whines about tax cuts “for the rich”. Is the “rich” not a group, J? If you don’t like groups, why do you list them? Don’t understand irony, do you? But again, contrary to your lame attempt at deflection, what matters is revenue collected by the federal government, right? You say the “rich” (a group) is getting too many breaks. I showed you the rich, as a group, are not. Our tax code is the most progressive it’s ever been, with an even smaller group shouldering most of the weight than before. The middle and lower classes are shouldering less. Lower tax rates, as I’ve shown, result in the evil rich paying more than they did before the cuts. Good luck trying to refute that.
Jeff,
Please read something other than Wikipedia. It is not an authority and you would be better served with a college course. The world would make more sense and you would not be so mad and avoid hating yourself.
Jeff,
Wait, you obviously were not alive or aware in the 80’s. Interest rates were sky high with Carter. They may have continued to rise under Reagan due to Carter, but the easing did occur with our man. The world was much better and the agony created by liberals dropped precipitously. Unemployment up, yes, that is the way to stop the economy that Carter caused. But the 20 years of growth from Reagan was spectacular.