My white privilege

[JoeB131]

Americans are spoiled. I am one of them. I admit that. The difference is while I was not under-priviledged growing up, I didn’t sit back and just hope I could be as successful as my family, I worked to get there. I never expected a handout. I never expected the “rich” to pay my way.

Americans are spoiled, in that they had it pretty good when progressive policies starting with FDR allowed a middle class to form.

But you keep believing you got to that double wide all on your own hard work, buddy. I know you really need to believe that.

 

[JoeB131]

Where did you pull that number out of?

You left out the parts of actually getting here, actually getting a sponsorship, not to mention gaining the skills in another country to be eligible for an H1B visa.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

ou consider the limp economic performance of the Oughts "going again"?

Please. The 2001 recession happened because the markets had no faith in Bush, and everyone was heading for the doors. He inherited 4% unemployment and a booming stock market and managed to **** it up in a year. And, yeah, 9/11 happened because Bush ignored a specific warning that Bin Laden was up to something about a month before hit happened. "Well, you've covered your ass" he said to the CIA before he went fishing.

Remember Bush’s Vacation

The 10th anniversary of the September 11 attacks is a reminder of the Bush administration’s many missteps, writes Eric Alterman.

www.americanprogress.org

I don’t remember the guy’s name, but I remember he went on for 10 or 15 minutes about how difficult it was for most Americans to make do with just two weeks vacation while the average in Western Europe is six weeks. By the end of that August, though Bush had only been in office since January 20, he had already managed 96 days of vacation time, or nearly 14 times as much as most Americans enjoyed during that period. As it happens, Bush ended up setting a presidential record for vacation days taken—977 days over the course of his two administrations or an unbelievable 33 percent of his presidency.*


What did George Bush do after receiving his second serious warning of imminent danger to the nation whose protection and defense he had sworn to uphold? According to reporter Ron Suskind, Bush replied to the CIA briefer, "All right. You’ve covered your ass, now," and spent the rest of the day fishing.

Apparently nothing at all could cut short this president’s month-long August vacation.

Bush didn't take anymore vacation time than any other President. What the commies in the MSM considered vacation is when he went to his Texas ranch where he worked out of doing the work as President.

Bush had no idea of the 911 attack. Sure, the White House got threats, but no more or less threats than they received long before Bush came into office and long after he left. There was no specific threat about airplanes flying into buildings. It's a leftist lie.

I know you hate learning the truth, but in the event you're in one of your curious moods to actually learn something, read this. It's from one of your very own so you can't complain about the source either.

What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11

U.S. Intelligence Warned Bin Laden Might Stage Hijackings

www.cbsnews.com

 

[JoeB131]

Bush didn't take anymore vacation time than any other President. What the commies in the MSM considered vacation is when he went to his Texas ranch where he worked out of doing the work as President.

Bush had no idea of the 911 attack. Sure, the White House got threats, but no more or less threats than they received long before Bush came into office and long after he left. There was no specific threat about airplanes flying into buildings. It's a leftist lie.

Except everyone in the intel community was screaming something big was coming.

I know you hate learning the truth, but in the event you're in one of your curious moods to actually learn something, read this. It's from one of your very own so you can't complain about the source either.

Blah, blah, blah.

Bush lied, people died. I always find it amusing that Republicans are NEVER responsible for the ******* disasters that happen when they are in charge. 9/11, Katrina, Covid.

You should change your name to the "Not My Fault" party.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You left out the parts of actually getting here, actually getting a sponsorship, not to mention gaining the skills in another country to be eligible for an H1B visa.

What does it cost to get here? Gasoline to drive over the border or a one-way airplane ticket. Many of the immigrants we accept are people from South/ Central America.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except everyone in the intel community was screaming something big was coming.

Nobody knew what. We were at war with Bin Laden for years before GW took office. We ignored the first WTC attacks because it was nothing serious, and only a few people died. There was suspicion of hijacking planes, but if you read the article, those warnings came two years before 911 when Clinton was still in office. Bush likely never knew about them because the warning didn't come during is administration. Foreigners were hijacking our airplanes since the 70's.

It's not that I'm shifting blame to Clinton either. It's that nobody could dream of such a plot taking place; not even our security forces.

Blah, blah, blah.

Bush lied, people died. I always find it amusing that Republicans are NEVER responsible for the ******* disasters that happen when they are in charge. 9/11, Katrina, Covid.

You should change your name to the "Not My Fault" party.

Yeah, a President is in charge of a plot he had no idea about. A President is in charge of hurricanes. A President is in charge of a worldwide virus released from another country.

How about the truth: You on the left are nothing but pathological liars.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh, come on, guy, hating on Mexicans was like his political brand. This is something he SHOULD have addressed. The funny thing, he tells you he hates Mexicans, but his big corporate donors want those Mexican trucks on the roads.

Show me any video of Trump saying he hates Mexicans. Why do you leftists lie so much? Don't listen to CNN. Go out and find out if they're lying or not before you repeat them here. It will make you look less stupid.

Most of the foreign driver I've seen are from the middle-east, a few from Russia or similar countries, and some Hispanics. By far, the middle-east drivers are what I've mostly run into here.

Reagan had a majority in the Senate for his first six years and he had a working majority in the House with Republicans plus Boll Weevil Democrats. (Back in the day, you also had moderate Gypsy Moth Republicans in the Northeast.) The idea that he couldn't have gotten spending cuts along with his tax cuts is just silly.

So here's what really happened. He cut taxes and INCREASED military spending, made a few token cuts in social programs, but not really because there's really nowhere to cut in those. And when the MAGIC PIXIE DUST of supply side didn't happen, he was actually enough of a pragmatist to realize that we needed to increase taxes (in the guise of "tax reform") and do some serious spending cuts in the military. (which is why he was so keen to reach arms agreements with Gorby.)

And conservatives were sooooo pissed at him that Bush had to scream "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES", a promise he had to go back on when the S&L Crisis hit and the government needed to bail them out.

The funny thing about Reagan is that he's the only Republican since Teddy Roosevelt who left office without leaving a recession (Hoover, Ike, Nixon, Ford, Both Bushes, Trump), being forced to resign (Nixon), or getting voted out of office (Taft, Hoover, Ford, Bush-41, Trump). So what you guys have to do is build this mythology around him that all the bad stuff wasn't his fault.

Leadership in the Senate doesn't mean shit when they are only second in line to get a spending bill. Back then, Democrats were more for the country than the party unlike today. They knew Reagan was correct by a tax reduction for our businesses to get the economy going again. They were right, and it worked fantastically. Reagan couldn't cut taxes or increase military spending since he doesn't have the checkbook. It's the House that has the checkbook. They make out the check, and the President signs or rejects the check.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Officers Paul Watts and Simon Russell

We had a saying in the Army. "One 'oh, shit' erases a 100 'attaboys'!"

Yes, lots of cops are out there doing a great job. And one percent of them are guys like Chauvin, Van Dyke, Wilson, Loehmann, etc. Guys who never should have gotten a badge and a gun to start with, who were just a terrible incident looking for a place to happen.

The thing is, you wouldn't want to fly on a 99% airline. You wouldn't want to eat at a resturant that doesn't poison it's customers 99% of the time, and you don't want a police force that gets it right only 99% of the time.

So these are the reforms that are needed.

Making it easier to get rid of the bad apples.
Correcting training that could potentially lead to bad incidents.
Have more transparency, so it doesn't look like a coverup when six months later, some tape pops up showing you did something wrong.

You seem to indicate that one bad apple spoils the whole bushel.

I think that the large majority of LEOs tend to have exceptional backgrounds, above-average intelligence, integrity, and selflishly serve their communities and help complete strangers with honor and bravery. LEOs, in general, are better people than most of society and other professions. They have better records than even clergy.

Watch this short video, "Policeman" by Paul Harvey. Well worth two minutes...



George Floyd violently resisted arrest for several minutes. He dropped a bag of dope. He had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. His lungs were twice the mass of a normal person. He would be alive today if he had not resisted. I expect LEOs to make arrests. That includes using overwhelming force if the perp resists. Life is full of choices, and choices have consequences. George Floyd made bad choices which had terrible consequences for him. Perhaps Chauvin used excessive force, but the hold he used was standard procedure. Expecting him to perfectly balance the use of force with accurate medical monitoring of a violent perp might be too much to ask, but perhaps his force was excessive. Doesn't mean there is a systemic problem.

I have little sympathy for people who resist police with force. If they get hurt in the process, it's kind of an expected outcome, and it is their own fault. Those with per-existing conditions like Floyd might have very severe consequences. Can't expect LEOs to use kit gloves; they have a family to go home every day.

Regards,
Jim

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You seem to indicate that one bad apple spoils the whole bushel.

I think that the large majority of LEOs tend to have exceptional backgrounds, above-average intelligence, integrity, and selflishly serve their communities and help complete strangers with honor and bravery. LEOs, in general, are better people than most of society and other professions. They have better records than even clergy.

Now the family is getting 27 million taxpayer dollars for a guy that likely would have died even if not restrained, or not long after the way he was going. The officer involved was arrested before an investigation even started yet alone after it was complete, and now they are handing out multi-millions before the trial even starts.

This is how Democrats waste taxpayer dollars which is why they should never be in charge of anything. It's not their money so they don't care.

 

[Man of Ethics]

Actually, I would be willing to bet that people who LEGALLY migrated to to the US, regardless of race and with very little money, are more financially successfully overall than many so called under priviledged groups in our country. The US rewards hard work and gives EVERYONE the opportuity to succeed. Of course it is harder to start with very little money, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

1) We came to USA in 1983 -- I was 13.

2) People from poor minority background can succeed, but they are much less likely to succeed then those from rich background.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody knew what. We were at war with Bin Laden for years before GW took office. We ignored the first WTC attacks because it was nothing serious, and only a few people died.

That and it was only tangentally involving bin Laden's group.

There was suspicion of hijacking planes, but if you read the article, those warnings came two years before 911 when Clinton was still in office. Bush likely never knew about them because the warning didn't come during is administration. Foreigners were hijacking our airplanes since the 70's.

One more time. He got a PDA detailing an imminent attack on August 6, 2001. He went fishing. A month later the towers fell.

Leadership in the Senate doesn't mean shit when they are only second in line to get a spending bill. Back then, Democrats were more for the country than the party unlike today. They knew Reagan was correct by a tax reduction for our businesses to get the economy going again. They were right, and it worked fantastically. Reagan couldn't cut taxes or increase military spending since he doesn't have the checkbook. It's the House that has the checkbook. They make out the check, and the President signs or rejects the check.

Actually, supply side was a joke. The economy continued to be shit well into 1984, and unemployment was higher in 1984 than when he was elected. It was just off it's peak of 11.3 in 1983. But 1986, they knew Supply Side didn't work, raised taxes and cut military spending...

 

[JoeB131]

You seem to indicate that one bad apple spoils the whole bushel.

Um, yeah, when the rest of the Bushel covers up for him.

I think that the large majority of LEOs tend to have exceptional backgrounds, above-average intelligence, integrity, and selflishly serve their communities and help complete strangers with honor and bravery. LEOs, in general, are better people than most of society and other professions. They have better records than even clergy.

Nobody dies if the Clergy makes a mistake.

George Floyd violently resisted arrest for several minutes. He dropped a bag of dope. He had a lethal dose of fentanyl in his system. His lungs were twice the mass of a normal person. He would be alive today if he had not resisted.

He would be alive if Chavin hadn't kneeled on his neck for nine minutes.

I expect LEOs to make arrests. That includes using overwhelming force if the perp resists. Life is full of choices, and choices have consequences. George Floyd made bad choices which had terrible consequences for him.

He made bad choices. . None of which merited killing him and they certainly wouldn't have used that kind of force if he was white.

Perhaps Chauvin used excessive force, but the hold he used was standard procedure. Expecting him to perfectly balance the use of force with accurate medical monitoring of a violent perp might be too much to ask, but perhaps his force was excessive. Doesn't mean there is a systemic problem.

Uh, yeah, there is if this is considered okay. You had a whole crowd of people screaming to let him breathe, and three other cops who were just fine with what Chauvin was doing.

I have little sympathy for people who resist police with force. If they get hurt in the process, it's kind of an expected outcome, and it is their own fault. Those with per-existing conditions like Floyd might have very severe consequences. Can't expect LEOs to use kit gloves; they have a family to go home every day.

Again, if we had an epidemic of cops being killed in the line of duty, you'd have a point. But only 48 cops were shot by bad guys, a really low number considered that we have 39,000 Americans who die from gun violence every year. Four cops were shot by - wait for it, other cops. Who also managed to kill 1000 other Americans last year.

 

[Jim H - VA USA]

Actually, I would be willing to bet that people who LEGALLY migrated to to the US, regardless of race and with very little money, are more financially successfully overall than many so called under priviledged groups in our country. The US rewards hard work and gives EVERYONE the opportuity to succeed. Of course it is harder to start with very little money, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

1) We came to USA in 1983 -- I was 13.

2) People from poor minority background can succeed, but they are much less likely to succeed then those from rich background.

> 1) We came to USA in 1983 -- I was 13.
> 2) People from poor minority background can succeed, but they are much less likely to succeed then those from rich background.

So what.

Your family came here looking for equal opportunity to work hard and reap the rewards of their own work. America is the land of freedom, or used to be.

You expect to be handed riches because you made it to US soil, and because you are (or might be) a minority?

You must be kidding me. Get with the program.

Rich people owe us all squat. They already pay most of the taxes that we all benefit from. They provide jobs for the country.

I have never understood why some people who pay less income taxes than their neighbor, would demand that the neighbor pay more.

About half of Americans pay no federal income tax at all; the rest of us pay it for them.

The richest among us tend to pay the most taxes, generally about 27% for the top 1%. They pay so much more than most of us do. Personally, I am thankful and wish them even greater future success, but I do pay a tidy sum of taxes myself.

Rich people make more money by continuing to employ people who buy homes and other things, paying property, sales, social security and other taxes, while these employers are paying similar taxes themselves.

The wealthiest among us pay most of the taxes, and that pays for most of the operations of the government, including schools, roads, law and order, defense, energy, etc.

Demonizing the successful has to stop. We need to encourage success. Everyone would love to be successful. Everyone can be, if they strive to do so, every day.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

One more time. He got a PDA detailing an imminent attack on August 6, 2001. He went fishing. A month later the towers fell.

Not according to the CBS link I posted. Post yours.

Actually, supply side was a joke. The economy continued to be shit well into 1984, and unemployment was higher in 1984 than when he was elected. It was just off it's peak of 11.3 in 1983. But 1986, they knew Supply Side didn't work, raised taxes and cut military spending...

It still worked, and they didn't raise taxes either. What he did was get rid of tax loopholes and various deductions. The taxes he raised in 1982 still put money in the pockets of people as he only rescinded about 1/3 of the original cuts, which meant the rates were still lower than when he got in.

Federal spending increases under Carter were 4% compared to spending increases at 2.5% under Reagan when adjusted for inflation. Again, irrelevant since both presided with a Democrat House where all the spending bills are proposed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1) We came to USA in 1983 -- I was 13.

2) People from poor minority background can succeed, but they are much less likely to succeed then those from rich background.

That depends on what you consider succeeding. If you're talking about becoming wealthy, yes, that is easier to do when you come from a family of money. But if by success you mean learning a trade, getting advanced education for a higher paying career, or getting into a field of work where you can make a pretty good buck, we are all pretty much even with that.

 

[Man of Ethics]

But if by success you mean learning a trade, getting advanced education for a higher paying career, or getting into a field of work where you can make a pretty good buck, we are all pretty much even with that.

People who have suffered abuse and/or grew up poor and/or have severe mental disability are far more likely to fail in life.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

People who have suffered abuse and/or grew up poor and/or have severe mental disability are far more likely to fail in life.

True, but that's not what we're talking about here. We are talking about normal people in different poverty levels.

 

[JoeB131]

Not according to the CBS link I posted. Post yours.

I already did earlier in the thread... Geezus.

Bush got the PDA, and his response was, "Well, you've covered your ass." and then went fishing.

It still worked, and they didn't raise taxes either. What he did was get rid of tax loopholes and various deductions. The taxes he raised in 1982 still put money in the pockets of people as he only rescinded about 1/3 of the original cuts, which meant the rates were still lower than when he got in.

Actually, what he did was shift the tax burden away from the rich and onto to the working class. And you dummies cheered him on when he did it.

Federal spending increases under Carter were 4% compared to spending increases at 2.5% under Reagan when adjusted for inflation. Again, irrelevant since both presided with a Democrat House where all the spending bills are proposed.

After the president submits a budget...

The real problem wasn't that he cut spending- as you say, it continued to increase. it was that he slashed revenues because he thought supply side fairy dust was a thing.

 

[SweetTea]

We were heading into a recession before the Virus hit.

Sure, so says you. The numbers didn’t say that at all.

We've been through this before, but you never get the point. The economy ONLY recovers when there is an increase in government spending. It's how we've gotten out of every recession since the Great Depression. Even Ronny Ray-gun had economic growth only because he was pissing away billions on $600.00 toilet seats.

Don’t kid yourself. Both parties always spend money, but on different things. Democrats just prefer to take money and dole it back out as they see fit. They despise personal resposibility because it leads to less control for them.

Yawn, guy, most people are mediocre, and our system doesn't reward anything but greed and bad behavior. The real problem you guys have is that even the ultra-rich are starting to figure out you people really don't know what the **** you are doing, and they are probably better off paying a little more in taxes than they are waiting for you clowns to crash the economy again and cost them a lot more.

Yeah, the ultra-rich are starting to figure out that us above average, non-mediocre folks don’t know what were are doing. It is you mediocre and the vast majority of the less than mediocre folks that are the real brainiacs. I swear, you can’t make this stuff up.

If we only voted on economic issues, if we took all the bullshit about race, religions, gays, abortions, Dr. ******* Seuss and Mr. Potato head (Yes, this is really an issue for some reason), The Republicans would lose every time. Because most of us aren't going to be the big business success. Most of us are going to be working for someone else, and we should expect to be treated fairly and paid a living wage and get the benefits we were promised.

Instead, what you get are guys like Ray from Cleveland, who lives in a slum, lives off of disability and whines all day about the evil government holding him back

You actually have it completely backwards. In virtuallly every poll I have ever seen, most people trust the Republicans with the economy over Democrats. Have you ever heard an independent claim to be economcially liberal but socially conservative? LOL. The overwhelming majority are just the opposite. You have to be a real nitwit (or lazy)to trust Democrats with the economy. If it weren’t for the social issues you mention, Democrats would NEVER win an election. They take full advantage of social issues and even make some up. They make up ridiculous claims line “systematic racism” to stir up the conscience of guilt ridden white folk. They prey on the weakest minded and count public school indoctrination to secure the votes of the others.

I can’t speak for Ray’s situation, but I can assure you that the overwhemingly number of people who are dishonestly, meaning could work but choose not to, living off the government do NOT vote Republican. They are hard-core Democrats.

 

[SweetTea]

Americans are spoiled. I am one of them. I admit that. The difference is while I was not under-priviledged growing up, I didn’t sit back and just hope I could be as successful as my family, I worked to get there. I never expected a handout. I never expected the “rich” to pay my way.

Americans are spoiled, in that they had it pretty good when progressive policies starting with FDR allowed a middle class to form.

But you keep believing you got to that double wide all on your own hard work, buddy. I know you really need to believe that.

I can assure you that my “double-wide” is nicer than your luxurious ghetto “condo”.

I am infinitely more successful than you. There is a reason for that and it isn’t luck or privilege. My wife is much more successful than you and it certainly wasn’t due to luck or privilege as outlined in my previous post. We vote Republican because we are smarter and have a better work ethic than you. The latter actually being the most relevant piece to the “success” puzzle. Instead of complaining about how bad you or some other folks have it here in such a horrible, unfair place like the US, get off your butt and make something of yourself instead of attempting to dole out my money to the daily porch sitters of the US. The sooner you get that through your thick skull, the better off you will be.