Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After all, it was a Republican President who signed the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment.
It was also a Republican President who aggressively used US antitrust law to bust large corporations; instigated and signed into law the act that established federal control over railroad rates; imposed sweeping new regulations on meat packers and other food purveyors, putting public safety over profits; nationalized 230 million acres to serve as parks. Theodore Roosevelt also suggested that a progressive inheritance tax be imposed.
When talking about "Republican" Presidents, it makes no sense to talk about anyone prior to Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. While the party was called "Republican" all the way through, what we call the Republican Party today is, to a great extent, a result of the 1909-1911 schism in the party; and to a great extent, a result of the a slow change in the party that started in the 1960s which eventually led to Reaganism, a redefinition of Republicanism that, in turn, radically redefined what it meant to be a Democrat.
It is critically important to understand such nuances of history when making the kind of comments that you're making.
I guess things like ending slavery don't qualify as a "tangible benefit" in your view. After all, it was a Republican President who signed the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment.
Quite the opposite. It's not the Republicans who engage in identity politics. It wasn't the Republicans who filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
You've got to be kidding me. The Republican party of today is not the party of Lincoln. The modern Republican party is the party of racists and bigots.
Quote:
Agreed, but as I stated 2 points previous, politicians of both major parties are responsible for the mess we're in. Neither party has any interest in making any real cuts to government. They both want to make small cuts, they simply disagree on where to make them.
And yet Clinton gave us a budget surplus that W. Bush squandered and Obama cut the deficit in half. Republicans cause budgetary crises and Democrats are fiscally responsible. Look at the self-made budgetary problems Republican governors are creating all over the country.
Quote:
Republicans don't view government as a bad idea. They view a large, expanding, power-hungry, inefficient, fiscally irresponsible, self-serving central government as a bad idea.
Demonstrably false. Republicans expand government and spending more than Democrats.
Well then... no need to worry about a Republican ever holding future office...
I have never been a member of any political party...
I do grow weary of having my city overrun and looted repeatedly... as far as I know... it was not done by card carrying Republicans... heck... most that were arrested in Oakland don't even live here... I don't even know if there are Republicans in Oakland CA.
The riots that brought Oakland to a standstill with looting and police cars being set on fire in the aftermath of the Oscar Grant killing had zero to do with Oakland... no Oakland people were involved yet it was the citizens of Oakland that paid the price and our elected Democrat representatives said we need to understand why mom and pop shops were being looted and why people just trying to get to and from work were detained.
Not aware of Republicans shouting down someone trying to speak or try to get someone banned from running for office.
In all honesty I would really like to have a conversation with a card carrying Republican to find out for myself why the R word is bad and the D word is golden...
Just how many Republicans hold political office in California anyway?
Neither. Economy is good but not great, government regulation and taxation is over the top, and employees/candidates have more of an entitlement attitude than ever.
You guys make me laugh... How much should a job which requires zero skills earn? If it's not minimum wage, then what negative skills is required for minimum wage... Housing is a result of government... They don't let just any apartment be built, if there is a demand for apartments and rents rise, then it's the governments fault for DENYING all those permits to build additional apartments... Short-sightedness of the government is not the fault of the employer...
Permits probably have a small impact. Permits could be free and easy; geography is what matters with real estate. If there were free permits that allowed builders to build tenements whereever they wanted, it would not fundamentally change housing prices. The number of units divided by total population in a region is only one factor behind housing prices.
An alternate reality maybe, but not this one. I know conservatives and Republicans need to propagate this idea that taxes are out of control and the young people these days are cretins that don't know how good they have it, but that's total BS. Taxes are relatively low in relation to growth and the job market has never been rougher for young people. There is no entitlement complex among younger workers, there's a disconnect from reality among older people. Baby-boomers still think that great jobs are easy to come by because for them they were. It used to be that you could just fall ass-backward into a manufacturing job that paid enough to support an entire family. Those jobs don't exist any more. Employee pay has not kept pace with inflation and the cost of living, and the American job market has been massively changed.
And it use to be that able bodied men were drafted and sent to who knows where... if they came back they could use THEIR benefits for education and to buy a home...
Guess what... they still can... all you need to do is serve just like the boomers...
Our newest Registered Nurse was going nowhere... she came from a single parent home and had no support... she enlisted in the Navy... it opened a world of opportunities... decided she wanted more... the Navy provided that and she is looking to buy a home... a 100k salary 12 months in not bad for someone 28...
Others will just moan about and watch life pass them by.
Last edited by Ultrarunner; 04-03-2016 at 11:18 AM..
And it use to be that able bodied men were drafted and sent to who knows where... if they came back they could use THEIR benefits for education and to buy a home...
Guess what... they still can... all you need to do is just like the boomers...
Our newest Registered Nurse was going nowhere... she came from a single parent home and had no support... she enlisted in the Navy... it opened a world of opportunities... decided she wanted more... the Navy provided that and she is looking to buy a home... a 100k salary 12 months in not bad for someone 28...
Others will just moan about and watch life pass them by.
Proportionally it was a much greater percentage of the population who had the opportunity to do such a thing. 17.8 million Americans served in the armed forces at one point or another in the years 1939-45. There were 132 million Americans according to the 1940 census - that's almost 14% of the population directly employed by the armed forces alone. Today it's about half of 1%.
The Cold War was great stimulus too, employing not only millions of people directly through a large military and national security bureaucracy, but millions more indirectly through defense-related industries. WWII and the Cold War pretty much made California what it is today. Civilian government employment reached it's peak in 1963 and has been going down proportionally ever since.
The military does not take everyone now. With the Iraq War over, they are no longer desperate for recruits. They are pretty picky on health and fitness nowadays. Back problem, skin problem, dental problem... no go.
And it use to be that able bodied men were drafted and sent to who knows where... if they came back they could use THEIR benefits for education and to buy a home...
Guess what... they still can... all you need to do is just like the boomers...
Our newest Registered Nurse was going nowhere... she came from a single parent home and had no support... she enlisted in the Navy... it opened a world of opportunities... decided she wanted more... the Navy provided that and she is looking to buy a home... a 100k salary 12 months in not bad for someone 28...
Others will just moan about and watch life pass them by.
The hell are you talking about? This is what I meant when I was talking about people being disconnected from reality.
Just because you can't make it doesn't make it so for everyone.
I have posted concrete real life examples of under 30 that are making it in the SF Bay Area...
Many of those old people that had it "Easy" earned it through military service and they still do today.
There is nothing I can say that will change your mind...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
