Yeah after he helped it infiltrate our communities.
I dont even know what to say.
- Thread starter Pinyapplesuckas
- Start date
Yeah after he helped it infiltrate our communities.
I would say many of the policies that have helped contribute to the disproportionate poverty and jobless levels of black americans namely the housing acts of the 60's and the unscrupulous loan practices/subsidies that the government financed or sanctioned. We can go further back to the Jim Crow era and mention all the anti-black policies in place that both parties have for most part supported or turned a blind eye to or even immediately after slavery where little to no action was taken to at least give former slaves a decent chance to compete with their white counterparts.
AJaRuleStan
All Star
Okay there happens to be a disconnect to the question I put fourth, "What is the evidence that shows that the Republican ideology doesn't play to that interest(black pll) again?", and the responses I'm receiving. Mainly in the logic ppl are using to evaluate the effectiveness of republican ideals in connection with the black populace. And I feel this problem is occurring out of a misinterpretation of what "Republican ideology" means versus a politician who happens to be Republican. So I think we need to unpack that real quick before I move on.
1)the Republican/Conservative/Right ideology is just a set of ideas. These core ideas include (the non-social ideas) free market capitalism, limited gov't, strong national defense, opposing regulation and labor unions.
2)A Politician who is Republican is an individual who favors republican ideologies to varying degrees. Note, Politicians have wide range of opinions; thus, any particular leader doesn't necessary fit neatly into these categories.
Now I'm making this distinction for one purpose, and that's to establish how to accurately judge core republican ideologies in connection with black ppl. Ideas like free market or limit gov't needs to be evaluated based on the result of those ideals in practice, and not the result of a republican individual in office because their is no guarantee that just because a Republican is in office at a state, or federal level that the "state" of those places will adhere to conservative ideals, or that every policy or act made by that republican is grounded in conservative ideology.
A perfect example of this is George W. Bush role in the housing bust of the last decade. Cocksucker Bush regulated banks to make zero-down-payment loans at low-interest rates to low income Americans. This proved to be disasters, but at same time the blame for this decision would, and can not be put on conservative ideology because those ideas are against gov't regulation in general. By any objective measure Bush stance on that issue was completely in the left, so it would be inaccurate to conclude anything about republican ideology in respect to black ppl in that situation.
TLDR;
For accurate evaluation of republican ideals we need to see the result of those ideals in practice, and not the result of a single republican politician, or at least if you are gonna argue based on a republican politician than you have to establish a link between the poor decisions that ended up hurting black ppl made by that politician and republican ideology which brings me to fakkit ass Reagan.
For argument sake lets say it is true that Reagan did in fact collaborate with the CIA/Gov't to manipulating the cocaine market in america by allowing/helping south american drug dealers import huge quantities of cocaine to use the profits to fund some commie war that congress told Reagan we would not fund. The question that needs to be asked is all these abuse of gov't power something that coincides with republican/conservation ideology, or is it against it?
1)the Republican/Conservative/Right ideology is just a set of ideas. These core ideas include (the non-social ideas) free market capitalism, limited gov't, strong national defense, opposing regulation and labor unions.
2)A Politician who is Republican is an individual who favors republican ideologies to varying degrees. Note, Politicians have wide range of opinions; thus, any particular leader doesn't necessary fit neatly into these categories.
Now I'm making this distinction for one purpose, and that's to establish how to accurately judge core republican ideologies in connection with black ppl. Ideas like free market or limit gov't needs to be evaluated based on the result of those ideals in practice, and not the result of a republican individual in office because their is no guarantee that just because a Republican is in office at a state, or federal level that the "state" of those places will adhere to conservative ideals, or that every policy or act made by that republican is grounded in conservative ideology.
A perfect example of this is George W. Bush role in the housing bust of the last decade. Cocksucker Bush regulated banks to make zero-down-payment loans at low-interest rates to low income Americans. This proved to be disasters, but at same time the blame for this decision would, and can not be put on conservative ideology because those ideas are against gov't regulation in general. By any objective measure Bush stance on that issue was completely in the left, so it would be inaccurate to conclude anything about republican ideology in respect to black ppl in that situation.
TLDR;
For accurate evaluation of republican ideals we need to see the result of those ideals in practice, and not the result of a single republican politician, or at least if you are gonna argue based on a republican politician than you have to establish a link between the poor decisions that ended up hurting black ppl made by that politician and republican ideology which brings me to fakkit ass Reagan.
Now i'm not gonna feed you any of those other counter arguments I see republican fanboys make like personal-responsibility of the black community because that wrong doesn't excuse the gov't role.
For argument sake lets say it is true that Reagan did in fact collaborate with the CIA/Gov't to manipulating the cocaine market in america by allowing/helping south american drug dealers import huge quantities of cocaine to use the profits to fund some commie war that congress told Reagan we would not fund. The question that needs to be asked is all these abuse of gov't power something that coincides with republican/conservation ideology, or is it against it?
Fixed that for you. Deregulation of financial markets has been a conservative (free market) stance.
Progressive tax rates are good.
Abortion rights are good.
Unions are good.
Financial and environmental regulation is good.
Black folks have higher income gains during Democratic administrations.
The Republican deal sounds good on paper but this isn't la-la-land.
AJaRuleStan
All Star
I'm sorry but did you read my last post? "These core ideas include (the non-social ideas) free market capitalism, limited gov't, strong national defense, opposing regulation and labor unions.". I made the conservative ideology quite clear, I'd advise you to reread my last post because it obvious you misread, or didn't read all of it.
As for the fixed part in which you claim that the point I made about Bush was an act deregulation and not regulation, I must say is quite absurd.
Gov't regulation is a law that controls the way that a business can operate. George W. Bush administration urged Congress to enact the American Dream Down Payment Assistance Act, which subsidized down payments of homebuyers whose income was below a certain level. Bush also urged Congress to pass legislation requiring the Federal Housing Administration to make zero-down-payment loans at low-interest rates to low income Americans. By any objective measure these are actions of gov't regulating how a business can operate, and not actions of deregulating which you seem to be claiming.
It would be nice if you...you know, cited some evidence for your claims. Just saying.
Encouraging home ownership wasn't what brought the economy down, it was the unregulated financial instruments that were created and used over the past 30 years.
And a subsidy isn't a requirement.
As for proof, read this
And this
And this
And this
And this
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/20...orities-make-economic-gains-and-so-do-whites/