"What policies, advanced by the Republican Party in the last eight years could reasonably support the idea that Party leaders understand and are responsive to problems faced by so many blacks (e.g., over-incarceration based on draconian drug laws, predatory lending, lack of health insurance, hate crimes, property tax-funded education, voter intimidation, racial profiling, sky-high college costs, lack of meaningful public transportation, a living wage, gun violence)?

Fortunately for most of these issues you have listed are local issues. And most of these local urban government authorities happen to be democrat. So these issues that you have been talking about for the last 10 years or so are already getting handled. The Democrats have done beautifully in these local urban utopias.

Now I know you already are very satisfied with how things are going locally, but here is how the republican would handle these locally.

"e.g., over-incarceration based on draconian drug laws"

Likely, the republicans end up looking more to the victims of crime and still would try and remove criminals out of the mix of society. They would believe across the board enforcement and consequence would deter crime. Also they believe family structures make a difference on drug use and would look for ways to encourage families. They believe over time these changes would cause the incarceration to decrease.

"predatory lending" Republicans likely will let the market handle this. It will spank both the person who did not research their biggest investment, and also the lender will go bankrupt not getting the loan money back. Republicans would be for offering financing education for borrowers. But in no way would republicans wish encourage the same type of decisions by bailing out those who make them.

lack of health insurance: The first thing republicans would like to do is find out trully how many American citizens, excluding illegals, don't have health care who want it. Republicans believe health should be tweaked, but do not believe the government should have the kind of power being the single provider of the nation's helalth care would give. Republicans believe more people are served faster than in other countries as the system is right now. They also believe if there is a government health care, there will a system of health care for the rich and one for the rest.

hate crimes, hate crimes are intersting, because the person who is for hate crimes also genrally doesn't think deterrants work. Republcans do think deterrents work and are interested in stopping all kinds of crime. Therefore all deterrent penalties should be set high enough to be a consideration in the criminals mind. And we should work hard enough that the criminal believes he will be caught and do time for the crime.

property tax-funded education: Republicans compromised school vouchers for a lesser plan called no child left behind. Republicans would prefer to have parents be the customer of the school and the schools catering to the parents, by having the parents controlling where the money already spent for their child should go.

voter intimidation: voter fraud and antimidation is handled on a local level. Statistically, still true today, voter fraud was more frequent in democrat strongholds by democrats. Republicans, like the rule of law and expect to enforce the law whenever possible.

racial profiling, Republicans are against people being harrased soley because of race. However this again is a local issue, and fortunately is being handled in our urban heavens run by democrats.

"sky-high college costs; Republicans have wondered when the universities will be accused of gouging the students. They have gone from having waitresses and waiters being able to work their way through college, to now having parents start saving when the child is in the womb, and still needing government assistance. The double digit increases year after year should not be rewarded with new government money, but instead more competetion in universities is needed. And other forms of eductaion to get skills.

"lack of meaningful public transportation: In very few cities is this a priority or something that will serve the public. But once again this is a local matter and is being handled by the wonderful democrat controlled urban centers.

a living wage, with 3 to 5% of the work force working at a minumum wage and 1% of those full time and 75% of those teen agers, skills is the best way to attain a livable wage. This will be done by involved parents armed with tools such as vouchers. And also families sticking together either making two incomes or not spending money on daycare.

gun violence: Republicans are against gun violence, obviously, they also believe in the the right to bear arms. They believe more enforcement of current laws rather than making new ones that only law abiders follow is more effective.

Of course by the responses to follow you will understand why time spent somewhere else is better use of one's time.

Prof...no disrespect to you or anyone else but...

Black people should be intelligent enough to get literature on the party platforms and the candidates and make up their own mind.

I get sick of racial/ethnic sucking up and clowning to get votes. I don't care if it is Bush murdering Spanish or Hillary trying to talk ghetto...all of it makes me sick. I find it condescending and frankly disgusting.

I'm black...but guess what I speak English, and low and behold, I can read too.

Talk to me like you would anyone else, don't try to talk down to me or "relate" to me by talking like you are some slave from 1864 or fresh out of South Central L.A. throwing gang signs.

I don't need to know a candidates specific views on black people...per se...general views on race and some issues would be fine(like AA, civil rights). Other things...(most things) are not race-specific for the majority of black people in this country as they are middle class and have a lot of the exact same problems as whites of the same class.

Almost all the things you mentioned are lower class black issues, which are not relevant to the majority of the black community in America in 2007.

As far as Tavis Smiley and Morgan State. Forget Tavis, I'm serious. I don't like Tavis, and 95% of what he says means anything to me or has a fundamental effect on my life or what I want to accomplish.

Big Government Program Tavis, Fast Talk Dyson, Messy Jesse, and Hot Comb Sharpton act as if they are the "gate keepers " for black political thought of 38 million people? Give me a damn break.

There are many countries in this world that are more diverse politically with much much smaller populations than African Americans...and they have multiple avenues and options on political issues. Black political thought at the national level is monolithic, monotonous, and speaks for a minority of our community (the bottom 20% or so) not for the rest of us, and they play off of the racial solidarity formed over our history to keep us supportive even when at times some of the things they want are not in the benefit of middle class (and up) blacks and more than it is for whites or anyone else.

These "leaders" have no constituency, they are not elected, they are not accountable, the are media creations that white people turn to when they want the "low down" on the "negro" and that is typically the "ghetto negro" not on the "average negro"...they can't even get that right 9 times out of 10.

"lack of meaningful public transportation: In very few cities is this a priority or something that will serve the public."

that is an uproarious statement. you're right that it's a local issue, but you got it exactly backwards. in very few cities is this NOT something that the public needs.

I would like to add something Chris G said at Bookerrising.com

'I still don't think the GOP should do a debate hosted by Smiley. Why do a debate where all of the questions would basically be "When did you stop beating your wife" and "When did you go from beating your wife, to producing kiddie porn?" If Qwen Ifill or Juan Williams could do the panel, that would be fair. While Williams is a liberal, he is fair in his reporting and has been a fair critic of Bush vis a vis the war, Katrina, and healthcare.

It's not that Republicans don't want the Black vote, they need all they can get. But who want to take time from amassing real votes, to genuflect before a demographic who is admittedly hostile and unwilling to hear a message. Even rich, affluent Blacks come with the "What about "Black" issues", even though they have amassed their wealth in the much maligned "free capital markets".

Even if the candidates were to appear, Tavis, Tom Joyner, and all other "ear to the ground' Black media personalities would basically use the debate to broadcast to Blacks how the GOP "just don't get it" and "have no real desire to see to the advancement of Black people".

So the Dog and Pony show and fake indignation is really disingenuous. Blacks do not vote for Republicans, nor do most us give them the benefit of the doubt when they try to deliver a message. At best, the message is recieved with polite applause. On the other hand, John Kerry, (who has since thrown Vick under the bus, I guess as a stab at Blacks who did not support him as he felt they should) showed up to the NAACP convention in 2004 and recieved a standing ovation and was heavily aapplauded when he stated he wanted to be the "Second Black President"'.

bookerrising.blogspot.com/2007/09/quote-of-day_26.html

DH, what a booty sniffing hypocritical boor you are. You're always the first one crying and feigning insult. Yet your entire rant was filled nothing less than spiteful rhetoric and venom. You haven't changed AT ALL. But guess what? Neither have I. I still think, you're a hate-filled negative pos. People think you hate yourself, but that's not the case. You hate everyone else! Especially black folks. It's amazing how COON-servative you've suddenly become; I read your post on Booker's Rising and you have ( through cloak and dagger) turned that blog into something equivalent to StormFront. You're pathetic and should LEAVE BLACK FOLKS alone.

I think the honorable host of Blackprof, should also be aware of the hateful rhetoric you've espoused about this blog and character assasinations you've made through-out the web.

i don't have the time or energy to respond appropriately to this barbarism (my corporate tax practice booms around this time every year). suffice it to say you're wrong about everything. ken is wrong about almost everything in his post too. republican candidates don't take blacks seriously because blacks act like clowns, crying about nonsense like "hate crimes" (which don't happen anywhere but backwards hellholes like jena) and "overincarceration" because of "draconian drug laws" (which doesn't affect good black people who obey the law and don't use drugs). black liberals love defending blacks who aren't worth defending (e.g., black drug criminals and black hooligans like mychal bell). that sort of stupidity will never be taken seriously by any political party.

i just read tarafagi's post. i have to say you're a bit of an idiot. melodramatic, too: which makes you some sort of wild idiot. nonetheless you're not an atypical blackprof poster.

Clancey! What I say to DH has no effect on you. Or does it? Besides, there isn't anything in any dictionary that denotes melodrama as having a relationship to being wild. What is your point? I'm not an "wild idiot". Why are you calling me that? I don't call you or any other white person names. In fact, I don't even type TO YOU at all.

I'm in a community of BLACK PEOPLE,sharing views good and bad. Why are you here? I feel like I'm being monitored, by you!

Tree in Jena!

Cut the tree before -
we learn dialoguing, kid.
Roots remain hurt.

Nana KAC 9/2007

"Even rich, affluent Blacks come with the "What about "Black" issues", even though they have amassed their wealth in the much maligned "free capital markets".

Our struggle was to “free” the capital markets from cronyism and racism. We never burned down striving businesses – OK or NC, out of racial hate. If socialist features were asked for, it was for the government to enforce the same privileges our counterpart were receiving, since the 1930’s in mass. DH – these hyperbolic statements are so off. If you knew African American history as you know Asian you would not agree with such BS dogmatic attacks on our ancestors’ greatest battles.

2) Whites don't have to go to a meeting and ask what is in for the black community. It is a given - look into a white males face, really look!

"Even rich, affluent Blacks come with the "What about "Black" issues", even though they have amassed their wealth in the much maligned "free capital markets".

Our struggle was to “free” the capital markets from cronyism and racism. We never burned down striving businesses – OK or NC, out of racial hate. If socialist features were asked for, it was for the government to enforce the same privileges our counterpart were receiving, since the 1930’s in mass. DH – these hyperbolic statements are so off. If you knew African American history as you know Asian you would not agree with such BS dogmatic attacks on our ancestors’ greatest battles.

2) Whites don't have to go to a meeting and ask what is in for the our community. It is a given - look into a white males face, really look!

I think this is tacit admission that the horse has left the barn for Rethuglys. If the Rethugly candidate gets over 4% of the black vote this election cycle, it will be a miracle of modern ballot box stuffing.

Unless things substantially change before November 2008, the Rethugly Party will resemble George Wallace's 1968 American Independent Party - managing only to carry the deep south.

The Party of Joe McCarthy, the Party of Richard Nixon, has done it again with Dumby, and a cast of clowns who betrayed every principle in their greed and avarice.

The Rethuglys will always be able to find a few intellectually bereft morons, and black buffoons to make excuses - but the bottom line is that the Rejection of Rethuglanism by black folks is due wholly, and in every measure to Rethuglican racism.

The Hispanic vote may now fall in line with the black vote. Dumby has alienated the most reliable source of color in the Rethugly hierarchy, by setting into place draconian rules against visitation by US Cubans to their relatives in Cuba. He has done little to benefit anyone except the multinational corporations in re entering Cuba post Castro's imminent demise. Local Rethuglys have found a new group to bash, in the form of Hispanic illegal immigrants, with the fury of a lynch mob.

95% of the black vote... 90% of the Hispanic vote...

It just doesn't get any better than seeing the Rethugly barstids go down for the third time.

Taf: (yawn)...stay off the drugs or get on some drugs, either/or.

If you have a problem with what I post on Bookerrising, take it up with Shay, the mod. She does moderate and respond to e-mails. I post at her pleasure. Her and I usually agree, when we don't she does not hesitate to say so.

Don't like what I post here...take it up with the people who own the site. I do.

Here is a site for your education:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_%28political_philosophy%29

Racial rhetoric like "COON-servative" is not going to get you anywhere with either site mods trust me. Grow up.

FYI:

Poll: GOP outreach to blacks seems likely to be spurned again
Posted 11/1/2006 10:35 AM ET

By Nancy Benac, The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — Black voters are far less likely to approve of the way President George W. Bush is doing his job than voters generally, and they are more likely to feel that the country is on the wrong track, disheartening news for a Republican Party that has been trying to curry favor with minority voters in recent years.
In what could be a particularly bad sign for Republicans in next week's elections, black voters also are more likely to say that the Iraq war was a mistake and that recent disclosures of scandal and corruption in Congress will be very important to their vote, according to an Associated Press-AOL Black Voices poll conducted Oct. 23 through Monday.

Black voters have historically voted Democratic, and their votes are critical to Democratic hopes to win tight Senate contests in Tennessee, Missouri and Virginia.

Democrats hope to regain control of the Senate, where they need a gain of six seats, and 33 of the 100 seats are at stake. The party's chances look better in the House of Representatives, where they need to pick up 15 seats and all 435 seats are up for a vote.

Unhappiness among black voters is reflected by L.C. Washington, a 41-year-old Democratic graduate student who says Bush is "the worst president in history," not to mention "the dumbest president I've ever seen — he's the devil." Washington lays blame for a laundry list of ills at the Republican Party's doorstep.

"Republicans are trying to win over black voters," says Washington, but "not doing a good job. Doing a poor job — the war, gas prices, job losses and the layoffs."

Even among black Republicans, there clearly still is work for the party to do.

"I don't think Republicans are doing any kind of reaching out to African-Americans," said 71-year-old L.D. Harper, who's been a Republican since he was 18.

While black voters say Republicans have done a poor job of representing their interests, they also have misgivings about the Democratic Party. Almost half of black voters said the Democratic Party takes their vote for granted; about a third said the party has done a poor job of representing their interests.

About a fourth of blacks said they weren't confident their votes would be counted accurately.

On the issues, black voters were most likely to rate the economy and health care as extremely or very important to them personally.

The AP-AOL Black Voices telephone poll of 900 black adults, 361 of whom are likely voters, was conducted by Ipsos. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 5 percentage points for the black likely voters. The overall likely voter results are from an AP-AOL poll released last week.

About nine of 10 black voters have gone for the Democrats in recent elections.

Republicans, particularly party chairman Ken Mehlman, have tried to reach out to minority voters in recent years. Bush's draw on the black vote inched up to a still-anemic 11% in 2004. But since then the party has taken a hit because of widespread dissatisfaction with how the Bush administration responded to Hurricane Katrina last year.

Only 38% of blacks are confident the federal government would help them in a major disaster, according to the AP-AOL poll.

And while the Republican Party has strongly pushed the candidacies of black Republicans in the coming elections, the survey offers little hope that black Republican candidates hold special appeal for minority voters. More than eight in 10 black likely voters say the race of the candidate makes no difference to them.

"It just depends on their platform," said Kassandra Williamson-Moore, a black Democrat. "You can't just vote strictly by race."

Prominent black candidates this year include Republican gubernatorial hopefuls Kenneth Blackwell in Ohio and Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania, Republican Senate candidate Michael Steele in Maryland, Democratic Senate candidate Harold Ford Jr., in Tennessee, and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Deval Patrick in Massachusetts. Republicans Steele, Blackwell and Swann are behind in the polls; Democrat Ford is running about even with his opponent, and Patrick is leading.

Blacks are disproportionately unhappy with Bush, 89% of likely voters disapprove, compared with 61% of all likely voters.

But blacks' approval ratings for Congress — disapproval ratings, actually — are roughly similar to those for all likely voters. Some 83% of likely black voters disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job, compared with 75% of all likely voters.

David Bositis, of the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, said there's little variation in congressional approval numbers by race because Congress is so widely viewed as being "in the trash."

Overall, Bositis said, the Republican courtship of black voters sometimes looks like a case of "one step forward, two steps back."

"They're never going to succeed in attracting more African-American support until the party has some level of catastrophic failure and then decides to go back to the drawing board," he said.

Curtis Gans, director of American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate, said voter turnout among blacks tends to be lower than among adults in general, but in 2004 they, like Americans overall, turned out in higher numbers.

He said voter discontent could boost turnout similarly this time, adding that: "The group that is the most uniformly anti-Republican at this time is African-Americans."

Two-thirds of black registered voters say they are following news about the campaign, compared with 71% of all registered voters doing likewise.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Taf:

Question...what do you consider a conservative?

I'm anti-neocon as I don't consider them true conservatives.

I don't care for the religious right and am myself an agnostic Buddhist (if you can't figure that out don't ask as I will publically ridicule you). Not for school prayer or 10 commandments in school, etc.

I support drug legalization (at least for users) or more like decriminalization.

I'm not against affirmative action per se, although I'm against laws that force institutions to adopt quotas to avoid law suits. I'm more for affirmative action that pushes stupdents up not pull them up (making them competitive from the start not trying to make them competitive in 12th grade or as a college freshman).

I believe in global warming.

There are many things I disagree with Republicans on which is why I'm a swing voter.

I am hawkish on defense and foreing policy (although I do not support Bush's execution of the Iraq situation, he is a moron).

I am fiscally conservative, pro-business, pro-free trade, I do believe in austere social programs that have feedback loops which show results. I am not big on labor unions, but don't want to ban them, I'm typically pretty states rights, although I believe the education system should be more (not less) federalized and standardized. NCLB needs serious reform or just scrapping.

Rethugly lock step rejection of SCHIP yesterday, and Dumby's threatened veto should just about put the final nail in the Rethugly coffin...

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602067.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Now for the voters with that wooden spike.

"Walters condemned the noose incident, calling it "abhorrent and stupid" in a New York Times op-ed piece this week, but he said the act broke no Louisiana law. He said the U.S. attorney also could not find a federal crime on which the three students could be charged.

is the statement in bold - true?

Ken:
Calling the issues raised by Ms Ifill “local” so that you can impugn Democratic political leaders is silly and gratuitously partisan. Do you really think that blackprof.com visitors don’t understand the federal government’s roles in sentencing guidelines, regulating predatory lenders, protection voter rights, etc.?
The Republican candidates themselves should have made the arguments you lay out in your comment. I agree with you on this point; Giuliani, Romney and McCain do feel that “time spent somewhere else is better use of one's time”. Like Ms Ifill, I appreciate this new candor on race issues.
Hopefully, I‘ll no longer be subjected to spectacles like our president making the claim that :
“we’ve got a very strong record when it comes to empowerment, when it comes to education …”
http://midsouthblack.wordpress.com/2007/09/22/president-bush-speaks-out-on-race-relations-and-jena-6/

Now, perhaps, Bill O’Reilly will no longer need to hide his surprise at finding a good restaurant run by blacks.

If this snub allows us to get past the question of whether Republicans respect the concerns of African Americans, it will have been a service to the black community. (My condolences to Jesse Peterson, Lashawn Barber, and the rest of the Project 21 gang)

No = that is not true, Nana.

Louisiana has Hate Crimes Statutes, and participates in reporting Hate Crimes at the Federal level:

www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/formssummary.htm

Here is a specific list of the applicable codes:

www.partnersagainsthate.org/laws/list-of-hate-crime-laws.html?state=la

Since the Justice Department has been totally corrupted with Federalists who don't believe in Hate Crimes laws in the first place...

www.thenation.com/doc/20011001/bach

Don't expect the Federal Government populated by Rethuglys to find anything wrong with a lynching.

I ... I ... I ... I ... I ... I ... I ... I ... I ...

Get over yourself clown.

And quit flooding the blog with your narcissistic masturbation.

No body asked, no body gives a damn.

I...I...I...,

That's just my point, he wants to be some magic negro.

DH, I'm not comfortable with the language I used, but apologies would be shallow. I apologize to the Profs, and other members as well.

You've asked me what do I think a coonservative is, but that's just my point. You come off as an opportunist rather than someone with deeply rooted ideological beliefs. I believe the only reason you've aligned yourself with other COON-servatives is because they are malicious towards black people.

As for Shay, if she can't see that she's being manipulated, that's on her. Perhaps she shares your views. One thing for sure, she has certainly amassed a bunch of haters.

Anyway, I take back the "pos" part. I do respect your humanity, but I have strong objections to most of your rhetoric.

Illogic-

"If this snub allows us to get past the question of whether Republicans respect the concerns of African Americans, it will have been a service to the black community. (My condolences to Jesse Peterson, Lashawn Barber, and the rest of the Project 21 gang)"

Why is it you believe black democrats should have a say in who the republican nominee should be? The snub you are referring to is the correct assessment you are not going to be voting in the republican primary to decide who the republican candidate should be. It was right for democrat contenders to go to a democrat audience and discuss democrat issues, but why should republicans do the same?

Now the election is two years away, the events would run like this. The republicans will choose who they think will best represent their views and also communicate these views. This debate will be among republicans. After this is decided than this republican will try to articulate this point of view and hopefully, more than some blacks will look past their racial hot buttons from the left that hold them captive and actually consider the issues.

Its pretty clear its an uphill battle if already they consider themselves snubbed because they feel black democrats should have a right to decide who should be the republican candidate.

Speaking of why black folks despise Rethuglys...

Dumby's veto of Hate Crimes Legislation:

Senate passes hate crime bill that covers violence against gays

The measure is attached to defense legislation, which no president has ever vetoed. Opponents say Bush will do just that.

www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hatecrime28sep28,1,6705718.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&track=crosspromo

Breaking! Looks like the Jena 6 Prosecutor has dropped prosecuting Bell as an adult:

www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/27/jena.six/

Taf:

"You've asked me what do I think a coonservative is, but that's just my point. You come off as an opportunist rather than someone with deeply rooted ideological beliefs."

Dude that is called pragnamic.

If you allow ideology to run your life you are a fool. Life is far too complicated to make it conform to ideology (which is basically a theory or framework)...I take things as they come and base them on what I think is practical and what I think works or what is in my best interest. I don't give a damn about political parties per se.

As far as malicious toward black people...wow tell that to my father, step mother, sister, best friend, grandparents...dude you are nuts.

haha I meant to say "it is called pragmatic" LOL

BT said:

"Breaking! Looks like the Jena 6 Prosecutor has dropped prosecuting Bell as an adult:

www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/27/jena.six/
"

That's good. Lock his criminal @$$ up as a child.

let the others go on time servered and be done with it. He should have never been charged as an adult...none of them should, however due to the brutality of the crime and the previous offenses (Bell was on probation) he needs to do time...his previous vitimes I believe were black.

Sorry Lizzie - But I don't buy into the "brutality of the crime" bullsquat. A black eye is hardly a heinous offense.

I do buy that Bell should be charged with simple assault, and if that violates the terms of his probation previous offense(s), then he should serve whatever time is justly due. They may well amount to time served at this point.

The three students who placed the nooses in the tree should be charged with vandalism, and a Hate Crime under Louisiana's laws. Since a broken beer bottle is as dangerous a weapon as a knife, the men who attacked the 5 youth at the party should be charged with felony assault - and if they are adults, about 1/2 a dozen other things for attacking children.

Lastly, the kid with the shotgun should be charged with a felony weapons charge.

I imagine the jail population in Jena...

Will be considerbly lighter.

Ain't justice beautiful!

Ken:
These aren’t the primaries. The Republican nominee is not going to be decided at Morgan State. I wonder if you’re familiar with black colleges. I assure you, there are more than a few conservative (small c) leaning blacks at every HBCU campus. There are many more who are aware of the shortcomings of the Democratic party and are open to fresh perspectives. It’s worth saying again that African Americans are not monolithic politically; we’re just not stupid (well, most of us anyway). I’m not bothered because “black Democrats” won’t be picking the Republican nominee. I’m bothered that a group of people who aspire to be my president can’t find the time to focus on issues that affect the African American community most directly for even one night !
Frankly, ken, I find it almost as troubling that you, with apparent earnestness, think it proper that blacks not take part in the republican platform debate.

The republicans will choose who they think will best represent their views and also communicate these views. This debate will be among republicans. After this is decided than this republican will try to articulate this point of view and hopefully, more than some blacks will look past their racial hot buttons from the left that hold them captive and actually consider the issues.

What’s wrong with you? Do you really think that policy is best created by white people alone? Do you really think that the 80 or 90 percent of black people who vote Democrat are all just held captive by the left and their “racial hot buttons”? Are we all just too unsophisticated to see the benefits of the free market and reckless tax cuts? I was looking forward to engaging the Republican platform you laid out point by point but I fear my effort might be wasted.

I see the "Dragon" is in full-flame on this topic, rofl!

It [seems to] come a time in all black media-centric/political peoples lives when the white recessives remind them they have money but no power. Tavis needs to take the humble pill and return to empowering all the progressive melanin-rich intellectuals, advocates and visionaries who could make white people debates at black universities look like the "mold on pumpernickle" it truly is! How can Tavis invest so much energy in a presidential process that is truly decided by white electorates and dumbold computers?

I heard Tavis tell a white comedian on his show, "you are blackest (meaning melanin-brotherhood) white dude I know." I thought to myself, 'Here goes another one, thinking a recessive can love you to the melanin." Can't be done because if they do it, they will go extinct.

Hot damn BT:

we are in agreement...however a assault...for Bell is going to weigh heavy as he is already on probation and has a history of violence.

If he was an adult three time loser in most states he would be going away for awhile...but I agree the prosecutor overreached however the "noose" incident had nothing to do with Bell attacking that kid.

The Black investigator from the Justice Department found this.

The sequence was.

1)The Nooses got hung. The kids were not expelled, the way they should have been (not due to the school, but the school board).

2) A little later two of the Jena 6 were in a fight at a party they were trying to crash with some white boys (but reports I have read said there were blacks at the party).

3) There was the fight at the convenient store where the white boy pulled a shot gun and the black kids got charged with stealing it.

Also racism to me...but none of that had anything to do with teh nooses, as none of the whites involved in the nooses were involved in the fight, the fight at the store was an extension of the fight at the party.

4) Bell saw a white boy at school who he thought was "talking $#1t" about fighting his boys on a previous occassion but had nothing to do with it...and they jumped him.

Bell hit him from behind, reports were he was knocked out by the time he hit the ground, he never through a punch.

The other 5 boys came up and punched and stomped him unti it was broken up.

That is what the court case says, look it up yourself, I did

Now that is not simple assault, that is aggravated assault, but were they really intending to kill him? No, I don't believe so. Should they have been charged as adults? Well...no I don't believe so, maybe Bell but not the others.

I do admit BT there was a heightened racial atmosphere because of the noose incident but that is not an excuse for this...but that being said...these kids got railroaded on trump up charges...so yes they deserve justice.

Man, some fools rely too heavily on white reporting:
The white Jena place said...Therefore it must be true. Stupid logic!
The white witnesses said...Therefore it must be true. Dumb logic!
The white victim said...Therefore it must be true. Idiotic logic!
Well, you know whites don't lie about Black people. Sambo logic!

Grow up, moron.

place = police

illogic,

"Frankly, ken, I find it almost as troubling that you, with apparent earnestness, think it proper that blacks not take part in the republican platform debate"

I think now we are getting to the point why this would be a silly thing for republicans to go into a atmosphre where people like you are looking for words just to make a race issue out in an out of context statement.

Here was the question in case you missed it: "Why is it you believe black democrats should have a say in who the republican nominee should be?

I wasn't ignorant of the fact that there are some black republicans when I said this statment. This is why I said black DEMOCRATS.

It’s worth saying again that African Americans are not monolithic politically; we’re just not stupid (well, most of us anyway)."

You would think by your earlier distortion of me saying its is up to republicans to pick their nominee as exclusive to white, you don't really believe this.

"Are we all just too unsophisticated to see the benefits of the free market and reckless tax cuts? I was looking forward to engaging the Republican platform you laid out point by point but I fear my effort might be wasted"

First before we decide on your sophistication, why the word "reckless" tax cuts for a cut that actually raised the government revenue. Why do you believe tax increases automatically mean more government revenue. To help in your quest for sophistication maybe ponder this... If the tax rate were 0 how much in revenue would be collected?
And if the tax rate were 100% how much revenue would be collected?

illogic,

"Frankly, ken, I find it almost as troubling that you, with apparent earnestness, think it proper that blacks not take part in the republican platform debate"

I think now we are getting to the point why this would be a silly thing for republicans to go into a atmosphre where people like you are looking for words just to make a race issue out in an out of context statement.

Here was the question in case you missed it: "Why is it you believe black democrats should have a say in who the republican nominee should be?

I wasn't ignorant of the fact that there are some black republicans when I said this statment. This is why I said black DEMOCRATS.

It’s worth saying again that African Americans are not monolithic politically; we’re just not stupid (well, most of us anyway)."

You would think by your earlier distortion of me saying its is up to republicans to pick their nominee as exclusive to white, you don't really believe this.

"Are we all just too unsophisticated to see the benefits of the free market and reckless tax cuts? I was looking forward to engaging the Republican platform you laid out point by point but I fear my effort might be wasted"

First before we decide on your sophistication, why the word "reckless" tax cuts for a cut that actually raised the government revenue. Why do you believe tax increases automatically mean more government revenue. To help in your quest for sophistication maybe ponder this... If the tax rate were 0 how much in revenue would be collected?
And if the tax rate were 100% how much revenue would be collected?

Smasher:

Grow up and respect the board:

www.blackprof.com/archives/2007/09/
civility_community_and_the_reg.html

How many times do the prof have to repeat themselves?

Ken

Good point on the tax cuts, one thing people do not know is that when taxes are too high people try to avoid them more and wealthier people have more ways to avoid them.

"Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were lowered, but deductions were eliminated, and the end result was that the richest Americans actually paid more taxes. High marginal tax rates mean nothing if people avoid paying them because the tax code is riddled with loopholes."

Alan Greenspan was in favor of the tax cuts...why?

The budget surplus at the time. His concern was that if we keep going like that, in 10 years there will be no Treasury bonds and bills left in circulation, and how the market will manage to have benchmark interest rates!

Greenspan was considering the interest rate and growth rate which most people do not considered. With interest rates around 3% and GDP around 7%, running surplus would be a bad decision for more reasons than the interest rate/inflation.

My issue with the tax cuts is that they were passed separately from the spending cuts that they required. As a result, the tax cuts were passed, but the spending cuts never happened.

So it was not the cuts to stimulate growth, but that he made the permanent, when the spending cuts did not pass.

What he did was hedge bets based on a gamble that the spending cuts would pass and spending would not significantly increase...then came Iraq.

(sigh)

I'm not economist but I do know (from my minor in it) that liberal and conservative economist differ greatly on how they view government spending.

If you view it entirely as consumption, no level of deficit is appropriate. If you view it entirely as investment, interest vs GDP is a great way to determine a good deficit spending level. However, the reality is probably a mix. Government spending probably doesn't quite give the return of the GDP growth rate, so some of it becomes inflation.

Bush and Greenspan took the interest/GDP model...and they did manage to weigh it to keep inflation down interest rates at a moderate level as GDP did in fact grow...significantly over the last few years...but that is another issue...the growth was highly uneven.

To put it simple. Government spending can cause inflation and some economist do believe (and they have models) that deficits help to control future spending...no deficits will cause inflation...too much inflation (demand pull) this will slow down the economy even more (remember the economy was slowing at the time) which will in turn require a lowering of interest rates...which will cause people to disinvest in dollar debt and the value of the dollar drops internationally which (because we import more than we export) will increase the trade gap and put pressure on companies weakening profits at best causing lay offs and bankruptcies at worst...you get the picture.

This is all a delicate balancing act in the short term (although the market will correct in the long term)...it is not just as simple as "Bush helped the rich"...

Ken tries the old tax cut and spend mantra with - "If the tax rate were 0 how much in revenue would be collected?
And if the tax rate were 100% how much revenue would be collected?"

It's the difference between $0 and $10 trillion, Ken. You are trying to make the Raygun VooDoo economics case, and the same deficits smothering economic growth are back.

Every major Rethugly tax cut has caused massive job loss, followed by runaway inflation and deficits...

Resulting in recession.

You get what you pay for.

How can Tavis invest so much energy in a presidential process that is truly decided by white electorates and dumbold computers?

That's a GREAT question! and I think he could be very useful, even if the least of efforts only shines light of the real Republicans. That's why I find people who would demonized Tavis to be really unproductive. I mean what's the goal? If we can't allow him to establish credibility, than who?

Big Government Program Tavis, Fast Talk Dyson, Messy Jesse, and Hot Comb Sharpton act as if they are the "gate keepers " for black political thought of 38 million people? Give me a damn break.

Someone needs a break!

BT:

"Rethugly tax cut has caused massive job loss, followed by runaway inflation and deficits...

Resulting in recession."

The tax cuts were in 2001, it is now 2007. Where is the runaway inflation and job loss?

However, even with the revised estimates and loss of jobs for August, unemployment remained unchanged at 4.6%, according to the report. The loss of jobs in August were reported in the goods-producing sector, manufacturing sector and construction businesses.
WashingtonPost.com – Sept. 7, 2007

Not quite full employment but damn close.

Deficits don't in and of themselves cause inflation...if so where is the inflation? The threat of inflation that we are facing is due to the fed lowering interest rates, which cause divestment from USD debt...but it remains to be seen if that will turn into significant inflation as imports get more expensive over the long hall, depends how fast the market corrects.

Running a government surplus or reducing its deficit reduces consumer and business spending and raises unemployment. This can lower the inflation rate. That is what I was describing above and it makes perfect economic sense and this is idea is accepted by most economists. Deficit spending can actually generate growth if private investment is stimulated, that increases the ability of the economy to supply output in the long run. Also, if the government's deficit is spent on such things as infrastructure, basic research, public health, and education. These lead to greater potential productivity which lead to greater growth potential in the long term.

Deficits cause inflation, but usually because there is too much money in the supply chain, or another way to look at it, too many people have too much money which they are spending too much of which causes inflation (this is why too much government spending is thought to be bad). Typically in recessions, decreasing spending and not cutting taxes (in the Great Depression) makes things worse. Roosevelt lowered taxes and spent a lot on infrastructure projects to boost the economy.

There are a few ways to work out...please explain how tax cuts, deficits, and inflation occur in your view.

The American economy was already in a slight recession and we had a surplus so you can't blame that on too much spending on the governments part in 2001...the entire time the economy has been growing government spending has increased but that has not had a negative effect on the economy per se. We already talked about the inflation...incomes have actually rose slightly (I believe about 1.5% or something close to that when adjusted for inflation so I don't see that inflation has been outrageous or even that high, it was higher in the 1990's...

so can you elaborate?

"Ken tries the old tax cut and spend mantra with - "If the tax rate were 0 how much in revenue would be collected?
And if the tax rate were 100% how much revenue would be collected?"

"It's the difference between $0 and $10 trillion."

I am not sure what that means. But the correct answer is both would be 0. If 100% of everybody's income was collected then people would see no reason to produce income so the government would receive no revenue. If 0% was collected the government would also receive no revenue.

So its clear that tax increase does not just automatically cause an increase in government revenues, and also decreasing taxes does not always cause a decrease revenue. Nor is the opposite of these two equations always true. I.E. tax increase decreases revenue and tax decrease increase revenue.

However with our current tax rates, the decrease in taxes we have had in recent history, Reagen and Bush, have brought increases in tax revenue. There is no getting around this fact. You can talk about deficits, but without the tax cuts, the deficits would have been larger. The deficits are a product of over spending.

Instead of the class war issue of tax cuts. Where only the top 50% get tax cuts, and people who pay more in taxes receive bigger tax cuts; why not discuss what percent of taxation will bring in the most revenue for the government? There must be a point on a graph where we can see a peak income amount before the graph starts turning down back to 0.

"Every major Rethugly tax cut has caused massive job loss, followed by runaway inflation and deficits...

Resulting in recession.

You get what you pay for."

Reagen came into office with double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. Two things you aren't supposed to have at the same time. The tax cuts brought on a pretty long econmic growth run. We began having a recession in 2000 and then had 9/11 and stock market manipulators who caused fear in investng and also Katrina. The tax cuts turned us away from what could have been a pretty deep recession. Today we are looking at low unemployment an economy that is still expanding, and a deficit that is going down faster than analyst predicted.

From a non American's perspective.

Why would the republican (or rethugly as some of you are wont to describe them) candidates snub an invitation that would address a critical segment of the American electorate?

They probably been informed of the debate several months ahead, and still couldn't find time to go?

Methinks? CONTEMPT!!!!

"It's the difference between $0 and $10 trillion, Ken."

you walked right into that one, BT.

"However with our current tax rates, the decrease in taxes we have had in recent history, Reagen and Bush, have brought increases in tax revenue. There is no getting around this fact."

ken, a fact is something you can prove. you can't prove that bush's tax cuts created a revenue increase. you have correlation, not causation. there's a reason economists don't agree about what you call a fact: nobody actually knows.

Ken:

Sometimes I think we let our partisenship and general hatred for one aspect of a parties ideology cloud our judgement of everything.

Reality is we had stagflation in the early 80's when Reagan took office. Reality also is, when Bush took office we already had started an economic slow down...during both Presidents terms unemployment dropped considerably and under Reagan there was ridiculous economic growth. Under Bush there was considerable growth but not magnificent, but stable study growth.

Both presidents cut marginal tax rates (Reagan as I pointed out did not really reduce overall taxes...because really came down hard on deductions, which is what most rich people relied on to get around taxes anyway).

Since Bush had been in office, inflation has been low and study...there has been an increase in the deficit, but that obviously does not equal inflation. Unemployment dropped since 2002 and has returned closer to late 90's levels...It was over 6% in 2002, now it is 4.6%...not bad at all...full employment I believe was thought to be about 4.2% or so at least in the 1990's.

Reality is that the 1990's, a lot of the growth was imaginary built around the IT bubble, wages were artificially high...that burst by 2000-2001...Bush made some quick decisions.

My only problem is that he did not link the tax cuts to the spending cuts (latter did not pass).

The reason is more strategic than economic. I feel we are too dependent on foreign owned debt, however...thus far that has not hurt us. Deficit spending is not causing massive inflation because it is mostly in one or two sectors (defense)...not in the general economy that touches most people.

So I really don't know what BT is talking about...

Mwafrika:

I'm not sure how familiar you are with our politics here...but Shay on Bookerrising laid it out clearly:

"The top-tier Republican presidential candidates did not show up for one reason: blacks are not a key constituency in the Republican primaries that they need to win in order to secure the GOP nomination. Thus, they knew that they could literally get more bang for the buck elsewhere and focus on their fundraising efforts. Especially given the overwhelmingly liberal, Democratic audience at Morgan State University. Right or wrong (and I would argue that it's wrong as they should have viewed that the negative publicity was not worth it for them and may hurt them down the line as they try to secure votes for the general election), that is the top-tier candidates' political calculus....even though they lacked the integrity to just state it. The second-tier candidates need all the votes and especially publicity that they can get, and hence why they were there. This is no different than when Democratic candidates make the same calculation and skip debates sponsored by self-identified values groups, knowing that is not a needed constituency to secure the Democratic nomination."

http://bookerrising.blogspot.com/2007/09/gop-candidates-rip-four-who-skipped.html

Tavis Smiley did comment that:

"“there are some in the Republican Party who do understand the importance of reaching out to people of color,” singling out former Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Rep. Jack Kemp of New York and former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele. Mr. Smiley also noted that President George W. Bush last week said it was important for GOP candidates to reach out to racial minorities."

I would also say that New Gingrich directly critisized those that did not show saying..."I think Republicans could have, if they had the nerve to do it, a tremendous message” for black voters." The Bush administration (not speaking directly to the debate) also said that the Republican party needs to reach out to more minorities.

Still I think Shay is right.

If I was Republican and I realized the audience was heavily democratic and would not vote for me no matter what I say and I could be given politically embarrassing "When did you stop beating your mother?" type questions it is more pragmatic for me to go raise money somewhere or speak to people in primary states that would actually vote for a Republican in the primaries.

If blacks voted in the Republican Primaries in high numbers all of them would show up.

I would also say that even a lot of black conservatives...according to a poll taken on Shay's site do not consider themselves Republican.

Conservative is not necessarily Republican.

I'm not a registered Republican...I'm not partisen, I'm a swing voter, so is Shay, so are most of the people at Booker Rising. There are a lot of whites who also have conservative opinions on some matters but are not party affiliated and tend to tred only slightly right of center so they will vote for someone like Bill Clinton (left of center) but not someone to the far left...

All this tax talk......

I am sitting out on this one