When was the last time the left was right?

[rcecale]

"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. TEACH a man to fish, feed him the rest of his life."

Randy

[stevepaa]

Joel, There are people on the other side of the bell curve who don't have the mental or physical capacity necessary for the success you believe all can achieve. Perhaps we could let them survive on their own and let them be like the poor in countires which don't have resources to make life better. I have just viewed it in my self interest that the ones at the far edge should get assistance, and I think that there will always be such a division of outlook among us.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by rcecale
"Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. TEACH a man to fish, feed him the rest of his life."

Randy

Yes, but that assumes certain mental and physical capabilities are within the person you are teaching, and it presumes money available to be spent on teaching. It works when it does, and doesn't when it doesn't, and when it doesn't then what do we do?

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by stevepaa

byron,
The Republican party was brand new when Lincoln "ended slavery". But sometimes I think that is as much an exaggeration as saying Reagen ended the cold war.

Not sure how Republicans get credit for civil rights. I don't recall many Republicans in the marches. Seems to me that a Democratic administration had to send troops down to protect the civil rights of marchers.

Becuase, if you research it, it was the Republican minority leader and Republican party that pushed, while dems like al gore sr and kkk bird were fighting hard against it. Typical liberal response, instead of really doing something, they think that marching and protesting is the answer while Republican go out and actually try to do something to fix a problem. Look at the way each party voted, that tells the story.
[/B][/QUOTE]
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes [/B][/QUOTE]


Kind of speaks for itself, so keep marching, as that doesn't change the facts.

[/B][/QUOTE]
Republicans on the Record

What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?

Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.

In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do.

The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed.

Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators.

In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action.

The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.

Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.

As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.

In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.

[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]


It was appalling the other day to watch former Democratic Senator Bob Kerry totally gloss over Republican efforts in the name of civil rights. He implied that Lott's foot-in-mouth statement was representative of Republican views about civil rights since forever.

Kerry also maintained that all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.

In fact, very few party switches came about right after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Some exceptions who did switch were Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.

Democrats like Bob Kerry will lie about Republicans but won't tell you some facts about the heroes and icons of their own party. One of their major icons was not always Sir Galahad jousting in the name of civil rights. His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

JFK – The Reluctant Civil Rights President

JFK evolved into a true believer in the civil rights movement when it became such an overwhelming historical and moral imperative that he had no choice. As a matter of record, when Kennedy was a senator from Massachusetts, he had an opportunity to vote on the 1957 Civil Rights Act pushed by Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. Instead, he voted to send it to the conservative Senate Judiciary Committee, where it would have been pigeonholed.

His lukewarm support for theAct included his vote to allow juries to hear contempt cases. Dixiecrats preferred the jury system to trials presided over and decided by judges because all-white juries rarely convicted white civil rights violators.

His record in the 1950s did not mark Kennedy as a civil rights activist. Yet the 1957Act to benefit African-Americans was passed with the help of Republicans. It was a watered- down version of the later 1964 bill, which Kennedy backed.

The record on JFK shows he was a man of his times and a true politician, more given to equivocation and pragmatism than to activism. Kennedy outlined civil rights legislation only after most of the country was behind it and ready for him to act.

For the most part, in the 1960 presidential campaign he avoided the civil rights issue altogether. He did endorse some kind of federal action, but he could not afford to antagonize Southern Democrats, whose support he desperately needed to defeat Richard Nixon. Basically, he could not jeopardize the political support of the Dixiecrats and many politicians in the rest of the country who were concerned about the radical change that was in the offing.

After he was elected president, Kennedy failed to suggest any new civil rights proposals in 1961 or 1962. That failure was for pragmatic political reasons and so that he could get the rest of his agenda passed.

Introducing specific civil rights legislation in the Senate would have meant a filibuster and the obstruction of other business he felt was just as crucial as civil rights legislation. A filibuster would have happened for sure and it would have taken 67 members to support cloture to end such a filibuster. Sixty-seven votes Kennedy believed he did not have.

As it was, Kennedy had other fish to fry, including the growing threat of Russian imperialism, the building of the Berlin Wall, the Bay of Pigs as Cuba went down the communist rat hole, his increase in the numbers of troops and advisers he was sending to Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In addition, the steel business was in crisis and he needed a major tax rate cut to stimulate a sluggish economy. Kennedy understood his options and he chose to be realistic.

When Kennedy did act in June 1963 to propose a civil rights bill, it was because the climate of opinion and the political situation forced him to act.

The climate of opinion had changed dramatically between World War II and 1964. Various efforts by groups of Protestant and Catholic clergy, along with the Urban League, NAACP, Congress of Racial Equality, black activists, individuals both white and black and, of course, Martin Luther King Jr., as well as other subsets of his movement, are what forced civil rights to be crafted into federal law.

The National Opinion Research Center discovered that by 1963 the number of Americans who approved neighborhood integration had risen 30 percent in 20 years, to 72 percent. Americans supporting school integration had risen even more impressively, to 75 percent.

The efforts of politicians were needed to write all the changes and efforts into law. Politicians did not lead charge on civil rights – again, they just took credit, especially the Democrats. [/B][/QUOTE]

[Racerbvd]

[/B][/QUOTE] The 1964 Civil Rights Act

When all the historical forces had come together, Kennedy decided to act. John Kennedy began the process of gaining support for the legislation in a nationally televised address on June 11, 1963.

Gathering business and religious leaders and telling the more violent activists in the black leadership to tone down the confrontational aspects of the movement, Kennedy outlined the Civil Rights Act. In it, the Justice Department was given the responsibility of addressing the worst problems of racial discrimination.

Because of the problem with a possible Senate filibuster, which would be imposed by Southern Democrats, the diverse aspects of the Act were first dealt with in the House of Representatives. The roadblock would be that Southern senators chaired both the Judiciary and the Commerce committees.

Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time. Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it.

Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Man From Illinois

In the Senate, Hubert Humphrey was the point man for the Civil Rights Act. That is not unusual considering the Democrats held both houses of Congress and the presidency.

Sen. Thomas Kuchel of California led the Republican pro-civil rights forces. But it became clear who among the Republicans was going to get the job done; that man was conservative Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen.

He was the master key to victory for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without him and the Republican vote, the Act would have been dead in the water for years to come. LBJ and Humphrey knew that without Dirksen the Civil Rights Act was going nowhere.

Dirksen became a tireless supporter, suffering bouts of ill health because of his efforts in behalf of crafting and passing the Civil Rights Act. Nonetheless, Sen. Dirksen suffered the same fate as many Republicans and conservatives do today.

Even though Dirksen had an exemplary voting record in support of bills furthering the cause of African-Americans, activist groups in Illinois did not support Dirksen for re-election to the Senate in 1962.

Believing that Dirksen could be forced into voting for the Civil Rights Act, they demonstrated and picketed and there were threats by CORE to continue demonstrations and violence against Dirksen's offices in Illinois. James Farmer of CORE stated that "people will march en masse to the post offices there to file handwritten letters" in protest.

Dirksen blew it off in a statement typical of him: "When the day comes that picketing, distress, duress, and coercion can push me from the rock of conviction, that is the day that I shall gather up my togs and walk out of here and say that my usefulness in the Senate has come to an end."

Dirksen began the tactical arrangements for passage of the bill. He organized Republican support by choosing floor captains for each of the bill's seven sections.

The Republican "swing" votes were from rural states without racial problems and so were uncommitted. The floor captains and Dirksen himself created an imperative for these rural Republicans to vote in favor of cloture on filibuster and then for the Act itself.

As they worked through objections to the bill, Dirksen explained his goal as "first, to get a bill; second, to get an acceptable bill; third, to get a workable bill; and, finally, to get an equitable bill."

In any event, there were still 52 days of filibuster and five negotiation sessions. Senators Dirksen and Humphrey, and Attorney General Robert Kennedy agreed to propose a "clean bill" as a substitute for H. R. 7152. Senators Dirksen, Mansfield, Humphrey and Kuchel would cosponsor the substitute.

This agreement did not mean the end of the filibuster, but it did provide Dirksen with a compromise measure, which was crucial to obtain the support of the "swing" Republicans.

On June 17, the Senate voted by a 76 to 18 margin to adopt the bipartisan substitute worked out by Dirksen in his office in May and to give the bill its third reading. Two days later, the Senate passed the bill by a 73 to 27 roll call vote. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats held firm and voted against passage.

In all, the 1964 civil rights debate had lasted a total of 83 days, slightly over 730 hours, and had taken up almost 3,000 pages in the Congressional Record.

On May 19, Dirksen called a press conference told the gathering about the moral need for a civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, with all 100 senators present, Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. By this time he was very ill from the killing work he had put in on getting the bill passed. In a voice reflecting his fatigue, he still spoke from the heart:

"There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."

After the civil rights bill was passed, Dirksen was asked why he had done it. What could possibly be in it for him given the fact that the African-Americans in his own state had not voted for him? Why should he champion a bill that would be in their interest? Why should he offer himself as a crusader in this cause?

Dirksen's reply speaks well for the man, for Republicans and for conservatives like him: "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind."

The bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.

Taking Credit

There is a line from a movie which I have remembered since I first heard it. In the movie, a young doctor failed to get credit or recognition for a heroic act. A friend asked him if that bothered him. The young man's reply was "There will never be any credit for me, there will just be the next thing to do."

Credit may be given to Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota for being the loudest voice in support for legislation in the late '50s and early '60s. Credit may be given to LBJ for pushing legislation.

however, without the leadership and help of Republicans, who had voted for bills to help minorities for decades before 1964, any Democratic Party legislative effort would have been watered down or failed because of obstinate Democrats – i.e., the Dixiecrats.

The fact that Democrats are quick to take credit for the Civil Rights Act and for the civil rights movement itself is both phony and a self-absorbed vanity. [/B][/QUOTE]


The New Deal was government entitlement.

The left uses welfare much the same way that slavery was used, to keep their base dependant, and that keeps them voting for the free meal tickets. I suggest you read up on who really pushed civil rights, LBJ didn't have the support of his party and even the now racist naacp acknowledged that it was the Republicans who made the dream come true.

[bryanthompson]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Yes, but that assumes certain mental and physical capabilities are within the person you are teaching, and it presumes money available to be spent on teaching. It works when it does, and doesn't when it doesn't, and when it doesn't then what do we do?

So, then, are you in favor of testing welfare recipients for mental and physical conditions that would actually prevent them from working?

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Joel, There are people on the other side of the bell curve who don't have the mental or physical capacity necessary for the success you believe all can achieve. Perhaps we could let them survive on their own and let them be like the poor in countires which don't have resources to make life better. I have just viewed it in my self interest that the ones at the far edge should get assistance, and I think that there will always be such a division of outlook among us.

And we have no problem, infact we are excited to help these people. We are not discussing that. The generationally poor are not mentally or physically handicapped, their souls have been crushed by low expectations and lack of motivation. Throw in a pinch of angst and projected blame and you get quite a recipe.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Yes, but that assumes certain mental and physical capabilities are within the person you are teaching, and it presumes money available to be spent on teaching. It works when it does, and doesn't when it doesn't, and when it doesn't then what do we do?

Steve, I'm not talking about sending anyone to college, on the government's (or anyone else's for that matter) hand-out.

I'm merely stating that people need to be shown that they CAN!!!!! And more importantly, that others shouldn't HAVE to do it for them...for the rest of their lives.

sure, you'll have those who are totally incapable of managing for themselves, and have no support net. I have no problem with helping these people. But the people who abuse "the system" need to be kept in check. Second, and even third-generations of welfare recipients is just wrong.

Randy

[rcecale]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
So, then, are you in favor of testing welfare recipients for mental and physical conditions that would actually prevent them from working?

ABSOLUTELY!

And to he!! with, "But you're violating their civil rights by asking them to submit to a physical."

To this I say, "BULL*****!!!" You have to pass a "physical" vision test to drive, don't you? (Well, legally, that is...)

Randy

[Moneyguy1]

len

Respectfully; from reading many of your posts, you seem to have a problem with the "effectiveness" of government vs. the private sector and that people of good will on both sides oof the spectrum cannot act nobly when it comes to the disadvantaged. Yes, there are abuses in the system, as there are in the military purchasing system. There are abuses in the congress re: perks and "gifts" from the private sector to elected officials. However, the military and congress are far more able to afford the "spin" required to cover up their indiscretions.

There is a dichotomy between the view that "government is too big" and current thinking in Washington. As much as you deny the existence, there are those incapable of taking care of themselves. You may be a "go-getter", blessed with brains and talent, but not all have these gifts.

As for Habitat for Humanity, both my wife and I have worked on the program. I suggest, rather than writing it off as a lousy idea, you volunteer some time to the program before you make any conclusions. AS for the "cheats" that have kids, the problem is simply that the children are the victims, and the "welfare" is for their well-being, not as a reward for the parent. Both parties have wrestled with this program. In NYS, "welfare" for such cases is tied to the recipient parent getting training and at least being partly self supporting. Otherwise, monies are cut and the children can be placed in foster care if they are in danger of mistreatment.

In all due respect, some arguments appear to follow the "my conclusions come first; I'll find facts to back these conclusions later, but for the time being, I'll just claim that my conclusions are true".

Jesus Christ himself warned that the poor will always be with us.

[stevepaa]

Originally posted by bryanthompson
So, then, are you in favor of testing welfare recipients for mental and physical conditions that would actually prevent them from working?

No one is that smart.

My question is what do we do when we can't teach someone to fish. I am looking to the ones who say that "teaching" is the answer, to provide solution to the "unteachable".

Randy, I think we are actually on the same page. There is a group of the population that will always need help. Sometimes it may be generational as some disabilities are inherited. I agree that more effort should be made to get people off welfare and we should indeed teach the teachable.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
len

As for Habitat for Humanity, both my wife and I have worked on the program. I suggest, rather than writing it off as a lousy idea, you volunteer some time to the program before you make any conclusions. AS for the "cheats" that have kids, the problem is simply that the children are the victims, and the "welfare" is for their well-being, not as a reward for the parent. Both parties have wrestled with this program. In NYS, "welfare" for such cases is tied to the recipient parent getting training and at least being partly self supporting. Otherwise, monies are cut and the children can be placed in foster care if they are in danger of mistreatment.

In all due respect, some arguments appear to follow the "my conclusions come first; I'll find facts to back these conclusions later, but for the time being, I'll just claim that my conclusions are true".

Jesus Christ himself warned that the poor will always be with us.

Very true, my volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity was some of the most rewarding work I have ever done, the payment is in the eyes on those who are buying the home, to know that you, not the government, by choice are doing something really positive to help some one start over. On the welfare system, well since the largest group of dependents are single white mothers, the Republican party is part to blame, as tightening up abortion laws created this, mind you, the real blame is on the individuals, but the left has taught us that our own actions aren't our own fault.

[rcecale]

Originally posted by stevepaa
Randy, I think we are actually on the same page. There is a group of the population that will always need help. Sometimes it may be generational as some disabilities are inherited. I agree that more effort should be made to get people off welfare and we should indeed teach the teachable.

Same page, he!! ! Looks more like we're reading from the same paragraph!!!

Randy

[Superman]

Y'know, I think that Len's question has more to do with the very effective liberal stereotyping marketing political strategy effects than any actual difference in ideologies. If I may, Len's post seems to assume that what liberals want to do is hand out free stuff and that's it. As if liberals have no concept of sustainable "help."

I know this is going to come as a complete surprize to all of you, but Superman is a bit if a liberal thinker, and he doesn't believe that. We liberals would LOVE to effect more of a CURE for poverty, rather than just putting these admittedly counter-productive band-aids on the problem. So, we actually agree with Len (until you check with Karl or Rush).

What's bothering Len has also bothered me for a couple of decades now. And from my perspective, it has always looked like the mistake we make is to pretend that servicing this problem is very different from servicing a car. When front tires wear too quickly on one edge, you have two choices. You can just keep putting used tires on to replace the ones that are wearing out quickly, and perhaps spend less money. Maybe. Used tires can be found for $20. Or you can actually FIX the problem by getting the car aligned, and putting decent tires on it. The older we get, the more we learn that it's best to actually FIX the problem. Unfortunately, it's not as cheap as not fixing the problem.

There is just enough money in entitlement programs to feed some folks. If we really wanted to FIX the problem, we'd quit blaming and finding excuses to cut funding, and we'd design and fund some actual FIX programs. And there is the rub. The conservative party will do ANYTHING to avoid funding these social issues. That party's Daddy, "Big Business," wants to keep those people in the unfortunate situation they're in. They're a labor pool, and a lesson for the rest of us. The fearfulness and lack of hope are commercial tools.

[lendaddy]

I seem to be hitting a wall here. I am obviously not getting my point across. It's not about abuse or even money for that matter. It's about the best possible approach to pushing/pulling these folks out of the rancid system they are in. I have to do a quote right now, but I'll try to figure out what I'm not projecting when I come back.

[Moneyguy1]

len

You have done an excellent job describing your position. The problem is that many do not agree, and I think you find that confusing!!!

Cheers!!

[techweenie]

So there is at least one solution here: test everyone for ability and help only those who cannot work.

It seems to me as if most 'solutions' offered by the right involve increasing the size of government, and this is one. if 2 million poeple are getting section 8 grants, how many 'person hours' of work will it be to test all of them? How many more federal jobs will that create? How much more will we be paying in federal salaries than we would have paid out in assistance?

As with most large-scale endeavors, there is a breakpoint -- spending $1.01 to save $1 -- where it's pointless to proceed. If the 'fraudulent' portion of Section 8 welfare is, say 2%, what will be the cost of smoking that 2% out?

It looks like there's some agreement that the disabled and elderly poor might deserve some of our $180 per year. And without statistics, we're stuck with anecdotal discussions. But let's postulate a young woman, impregnated against her will, unemployed or underemployed (max. 20 hours per week at minimum wage). Does she merit help? Should she be punished for keeping the child? Should the child pay the price for the mother's situation?

A concerted effort on the part of certain groups in this country has resulted in over 85% of the population having no local access to abortion -- a de facto denial of the opportunity to get rid of the product of rape or incest. So those (admittedly few) examples are in society, unable to afford childcare; unable to pay rent in a 'safe' neighborhood, and potentially less able to find full-time employment and/or complete school. What help (if any) does a person like this merit?

[Superman]

I think I understand, Len. I think we're all just waiting for your illustrative description of a "plan" that would outperform the current system you are criticizing. As I mentioned above, I will agree that changes....improvements....are in order. More sustainability. Less de-motivation. More hope. Permanent fixes, rather than these suboptimal band-aids. But the trouble you're going to run into is that when you design your various systems to address these various poverty problems (it's not a single, monochromatic, cookie-cutter, stereotype problem.......it's a multi-faceted, complex problem, as folks have begun to describe in this thread), those systems are going to be more complex, and more expensive, than Section 8 or Food Stamp programs. What you're about to suggest (you'd better, otherwise you're jsut whining, and you won't even get yoru point across), is precisely what we liberals would REALLY like to do with the proverty problem, but cannot because your politicians are ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS campaigning on the platform of reducing taxes and cutting gubmint programs.

[Racerbvd]

Once again, Sup is totally incorrect, as it is the dems who want to keep the welfare plantation going, and keep their voting based enslaved, not Republicans or his hated "Big Business". Another thing he likes to leave out is the fact if you don't like you job, you are FREE to go find another, or go into business for your self. Republican are trying to fix the system, by doing something, and typical of the left, they do nothing but make excuses and blame the right. Keep maching lefties, as you think that is really doing something

[Moneyguy1]

"Are there not prisons? Are there not poorhouses?"

Has society actually made any real progress ssince those words were written? The answer is "yes", and most of the tolerance we live by has been legislated. Interesting that government has to pass laws to make us civil and tolerant of those that are "different".

Without the thin veneer of civilization, we are all in danger of reverting to savages. As imperfect as the system is, I would not like it to be dismantled as it seems to be, albeit slowly.

Warning to both extremes: Be careful what you wish for.