Speak Out: Cap and tax is coming.

Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 6:31 PM:

Harry Reid has a twenty-pound bill ready to blow though the inept Democrat congress while they still have a change to kick in one more bomb.

This one will effect everyone and the rich can't bail you out. As a matter of fact it will no be nearly as bad for the rich man as it will on everyone under him. This will be the largest ever tax on the poor and middle class ever.

So bend over little liberals. Here it comes. A present from your savior.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PaulDriessen/2010/07/17/its_really_about_controll...

Don't miss this part...

* Cost 2.3 million to 4.5 million American jobs, including up to 1.5 million in manufacturing and 3.0 million in the service sector; and

* Force household purchasing power downward by $1,400 to $2,400 for a family of four by 2025 -- impacting minority, elderly and other low and fixed income families worst of all.

Replies (66)

  • I hope that this has too few votes to get through the Senate. That friends and neighbors is our last hope.

    -- Posted by mynameismud on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 8:39 PM
  • Anyone predicting exactly what will happen 5 to 15 years from now is "blowing smoke" or hot air. Anyone taking it seriously is equally dense. Any site (Townhall) advertising Limbaugh and Beck books is also suspect with regard to being fair or balanced. The only thing making sense on the web page is a section entitled "New! from HOT AIR."

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 9:25 PM
  • Interesting - another article already mentions how many dollars are already leaving Missouri to buy coal from other states to be used for electric power generation.

    Under the basic cap-and-trade idea, without any 'special' considerations, twists, and backroom negotiations - suggest even more dollars would be leaving, going to areas where coal was never very cost-competitive to begin with.

    Kinda like double-jeopardy, or inverse Press-Your-Luck, where there are big bucks, but lotsa whammies.

    -- Posted by fxpwt on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 9:27 PM
  • Throughout history, many have told what was to happen in a few short years based on history of the past and focus on the present. The war between the states was written about with uncanny accuracy 50 years before it took place, not by someone with a special unexplained gift, but by logical people that were aware of the past and present.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 10:25 PM
  • Common

    You will not like it. I cant see why you would want it except to bite off your nose to spite your face. Southern Illinois will be the big loser if it passes. I would hate to live there.

    This will be very bad timing considering how fragile the economy is now. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid has to get it done before they loses the majority this fall.

    The real winner in this will be Al Gore who will get "Bill Gates" rich from it. I guess that was worth doing a movie for.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

    "Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality."

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 10:39 PM
  • The only ones that benefit are those trading the credits. When farmers are hit with the results of already high fertilizer and fuel costs, declining American ability to compete in world markets will decrease exports and add more to the trade deficit.

    Our economy will not only be up against cheap labor from developing countries, but also their cheaper energy.

    We may hear that giant sucking sound that Ross Perot predicted as the remaining jobs here head out. Why build it here when you can build it there cheaper.

    Oh, you say Obama wants to put tarrifs on those imports and penalize companies that export jobs? That will export companies and capital and the downward spiral of this nation continues.

    In my opinion we need to drill here now and turn private enterprise loose, not cap and trade or value added tax.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 19, 2010, at 11:15 PM
  • According to Mr. Driessen's doom and gloom opinion, China, India and Brazil have the "can-do" attitude, and conservatives have a "can't-do" attitude.

    What has happened to American Industries' capability to solve problems? Seemingly Mr. Driessen believes it no longer exists, and offers only a chorus claiming "we can't" "it's too hard" "it will cost too much" "the Chinese can do it better" etc. etc.

    Issues like cleaning up coal emissions, further increasing fuel efficiency, creating jobs with new technology are all distinct possibilities if less effort is put into finding excuses, and more effort is put into finding solutions.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 5:27 AM
  • Al Gore will become a billionaire off of this piece of legislature. That alone should tell you how stupid it is.

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 7:10 AM
  • Any report on cap-and-trade coming from the "Consumer Energy Alliance" is going to sound horrible.

    Someone please connect the Al Gore dots for me. How does he stand to benefit in this grand conspiracy?

    -- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 8:31 AM
  • This is old stuff FriendO. I can't believe you wouldn't know. I guess I know why you lean the direction you do.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11607

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 10:30 AM
  • It is embarrassing as an American to view what has happened to the holders of the office of the Preident and Vise-President over the years, since Harry Truman drove himself home from Washington and died in near poverty compared to the riches they garner today.

    The offices are little more than a springboard to wealth.

    And the rest of our elected officials are not a whole lot, if any, better.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 10:38 AM
  • Can you imagine what he will make off of this? He has a 10% stake in it. He will be a very wealthy man within 10 years of him starting Generation Investment Management. Remember that Treasury Secretary and former Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson is his partner.

    The $100 million Gore has now is pocket change.

    I thought the liberals hated those rich people. Especially the ones that are going to bury them where they stand.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 10:44 AM
  • Huh. Had no idea Al Gore was still a Senator and got to vote on cap-and-trade.

    -- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 11:57 AM
  • Huh. Had no idea Al Gore was still a Senator and got to vote on cap-and-trade.

    -- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 11:57 AM

    No wonder you voted for Obama.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 12:34 PM
  • I guess we should fault Warren Buffet for investing in technologies he thinks will produce future reward.

    Last I checked Al Gore can invest & lobby but cannot vote for legislation. You give him way more power than he actually has. It's ONE MAN.

    -- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 1:41 PM
  • I guess we should fault Warren Buffet for investing in technologies he thinks will produce future reward.

    Last I checked Al Gore can invest & lobby but cannot vote for legislation. You give him way more power than he actually has. It's ONE MAN.

    -- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 1:41 PM

    When did Warren produce a imaginary disaster built on faulty science and numbers to help create a new tax so he can process (at a charge) the required documents (carbon credits)?

    You are going to pay dearly over your lifetime for this FreindO.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 2:15 PM
  • "You are going to pay dearly over your lifetime for this FreindO," said some guy on the internet.

    -- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 2:56 PM
  • Oh look. FriendO made a funny. He's so smart!

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 3:10 PM
  • "The free market (what's left of it) will take care of those problems. We don't need big brother drastically increasing our energy costs for that to happen."

    -- Posted by vulcan2004 on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 5:44 AM

    Unfortunately, the "free market" isn't really free. There are rules and regulations that exist and have always existed. Were capitalism to be completely unfettered, we would have Bangladeshi wages, polluted rivers and toxic landfills in our back yards. Periodically there are changes in government regulations that business adapts to. Invariably, when these changes occur, business first complains bitterly on how they will "go broke" with new standards, then they get to work and incorporate them and life and profits go on. Meanwhile the "free market" capitalistic Neanderthals come out of the woodwork with more and more worries about costs, job loss, taxes, etc. etc. At the same time American industry is figuring out the best ways to continue to operate and improve their competitive positions.

    What is really ironic, is that I (as an independent accused of being a liberal) have complete confidence is American Industry to develop solutions to the problems of the future, while the conservative characters appear to have absolutely no faith in the industrial forces of this country.

    All that I hear is how impossible everything will be if reasonable methods of controlling future emissions are enforced, and how Al Gore will make millions or billions.

    The fact is that there have been continual changes in business regulations over the past 100 years and more, and industries survived and prospered, and they will continue to do so.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 3:12 PM
  • Here's my favorite quote from that opinion piece:

    "Cars and power plants are already 90% cleaner than their 1970s era predecessors."

    Three words:

    CLEAN AIR ACT.

    He pretends like industry just magically cleaned up after themselves over that period with no government intervention...

    -- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 3:21 PM
  • "Invariably, when these changes occur, business first complains bitterly on how they will "go broke" with new standards, then they get to work and incorporate them and life and profits go on."

    Yes they do and have... and where did the jobs go? Business adapts, they just produce offshore.

    Government oversight is one thing... government dictates by politicians and bureaucrats is totally another.

    And the current administration is the most inept at this to date.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 3:44 PM
  • while the conservative characters appear to have absolutely no faith in the industrial forces of this country.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 3:12 PM

    Catch up common. We are talking about government intervention in commerce and creating the largest ever tax based on junk science and lies. You are not independent. You are a.....well watch this....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkzV5AIK8iM

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 4:16 PM
  • And the current administration is the most inept at this to date.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 3:44 PM

    And now becomeing the most hated.

    http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5496850/obama_most_hated_american_presi...

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 4:22 PM
  • "the most hated"

    ...the opinion of one man...in Britain...expressed in the form of a rhetorical question.

    Hyperbole is a beautiful, beautiful thing. And sometimes hilarious.

    -- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 4:46 PM
  • "Yes they do and have... and where did the jobs go? Business adapts, they just produce offshore."

    Businesses do not send jobs overseas because of government regulations or taxes. Those affect a small percentage of their balance sheet. The single major cause of jobs going overseas is simply labor costs. A difference between paying $10 per hour here and $1 or less elsewhere is what induces companies to move production overseas, that and the low cost of container shipping.

    When acid rain was a problem, and power plants had to install "scrubbers" to reduce sulfur emissions, no jobs went overseas. Jobs were created in making and installing scrubbers. The same basic principle is applicable in the future.

    Most government oversight started with government dictates.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 4:53 PM
  • Most other industrialized, wealthy nations have moved on to post-industrial energy solutions.

    The US, backwards as ever, clings to developing-world, industrial-revolution era dirty fuels. We complain about India and China burning oil and coal - countries developing a century later than our own.

    This is like a teenager complaining that he can't crap his diaper like his toddler sibling.

    Time to grow up and be a big-boy country.

    -- Posted by FriendO on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 5:04 PM
  • "...creating the largest ever tax based on junk science and lies..."

    Sorry, the above is simply your opinion. As you may or may not realize, while you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

    As for the Bob Hope video, when I saw him in Viet Nam, he used the same line, except he said republicans instead of democrats. Just kidding, I did see him there but he was non-political. However, from the time frame of the video, he was probably talking about Southern Democrats, almost all of whom are republicans now (sadly because of democratic support for civil rights.) So he really was talking about republicans, or possibly conservatives.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 5:15 PM
  • Al Gore heavily invested in Green technology (before he made his inconvient slideshow), therefore he stands to make a lot of money if the country has to lower carbon emissions.

    -- Posted by mynameismud on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 5:57 PM
  • When acid rain was a problem, and power plants had to install "scrubbers" to reduce sulfur emissions, no jobs went overseas. Jobs were created in making and installing scrubbers. The same basic principle is applicable in the future.

    Most government oversight started with government dictates.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 4:53 PM

    No comparison oh yea of little knowledge of how business works. The costs incurred by a utility are easily recovered, they show the Public Service Commission (In MO - call it whatever elsewhere) they have cost increases that they can do nothing about and they get their rates raised so they show the allowed ROI.

    Guess who then pays that additional cost.

    Doesn't quite work that way in a business that is not a legal monopoly.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 6:19 PM
  • I really like the way the far left on here are suddenly proclaiming themselves Independants - Moderates - or like Hillary Clinton a Moderate Progressive. It is hilareous to watch them crabwalking away from their far left stances of the past.

    Actually though the retoric has not changed, just the names they would like to be judged by.

    Better said only the names have changed to protect the guilty!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 6:25 PM
  • No comparison oh yea (I am sure you meant "ye") of little knowledge of how business works. The costs incurred by a utility are easily recovered...

    If Proctor & Gamble has to install an emission control device, they pass the cost on to consumers (just like a utility.) What else is new?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 7:33 PM
  • I really like the way the far left on here are suddenly proclaiming themselves Independents

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 6:25 PM

    Every election they change their skin.

    In only 1.5 years they a using Obama to hurt Democrat candidates. Blunt using Obama's fundraiser for Carnahan to slam her is what will happen everywhere.

    But what would I know. I'm just a dumb old anonymous person.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 7:43 PM
  • "no jobs went overseas" True, jobs were created overseas and uncreated here.

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 7:47 PM
  • If Proctor & Gamble has to install an emission control device, they pass the cost on to consumers (just like a utility.) What else is new?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 7:33 PM

    I was addressing your flawed logic Common. A Monopoly (utility) has very little in common with any other business. They will continue to produce at whatever the cost. Something you libs are going to find out with this cap and tax bill, when it is fully made aware to you.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 8:18 PM
  • Suggest for those waving the red-white-and-blue all patriotic-like, y'all might be a bit concerned by the quantity of large electric utility work bidded and subsequently awarded to firms of foreign ownership. An analogy might be that Toyota builds cars in the U.S., but the profits really go where?

    Wheels - re post of 1819 - go ya one better - rural electric cooperatives don't need no stinkin' PSC to approve their rates.

    On the other hand, one might be really impressed by their efforts towards renewable energy, even though they were cleverly exempt from the successful proposition that set mandated renewables levels. Being 'not-for-profit' has its advantages. Doing things because one 'wants to', instead of 'has to' is all that much sweeter, in the world of public relations.

    -- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 8:31 PM
  • Wheels - re post of 1819 - go ya one better - rural electric cooperatives don't need no stinkin' PSC to approve their rates.

    -- Posted by fxpwt on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 8:31 PM

    This is true. They are a sacred cow and no one dare criticize. I am a member of one. I use their services three months of the year and pay $34.93 per month before the first Kwhr is used. Including the 9 months I do not use the service, because if you turn it off you pay disconnection and reconnection charges.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 8:48 PM
  • fxpwt,

    I failed to address Common's Proctor and Gamble comment. But if the cost of cleaning the smokestack is too high, Proctor and Gamble just puts out the fire and has the soap packaged in China, or some other country. Thereby uncreating some more jobs as Old John pointed out.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 8:52 PM
  • I use REA and Ameren. The REA gives a good explaination of rate increases and the board made up of members vote. The service and cost in my opinion is a little better with REA. Ameren will not tell you what the rate is, only what the PSC cap is. You have to figure it out. They do fluctuate the rate based on demand and one can benefit from that a bit. REA is the same rate year round I think.

    Non profit in some cases exist to provide the administrater and a couple of top employees big salaries and bragging rights to doing good.

    Now I'm wishing I would have followed the Kinder-Morgan controversy better. Was that government surpressing the free market?

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 20, 2010, at 9:44 PM
  • -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Thu, Jul 22, 2010, at 6:59 PM
  • Wheels -

    yep, when a business looks to expand profit by lowering costs versus raising prices - lowest cost wins, no matter where in the world it may be.

    Heard a couple of P&G stories - maybe true, most likely fiction. LET ME REPEAT - MOST LIKELY FICTION - USED HERE FOR EXAMPLE ONLY. True or likely not - the unverified example/message is that companies do follow the lowest-cost driving force of business. A good company will close things down properly with integrity, a bad company just packs up and goes.

    Supposedly, not too many years ago, a P&G diaper plant in Mexico could set a pallet of 'Hecho en Mejico' diapers on the P&G shipping dock in Cape for less than the Cape plant could. Pretty doggone embarassing, eh? In response, the Cape plant got on their horse and off their dead arse (spell that 'really motivated') - and now the Cape plant can set a pallet of diapers on the 'Hecho en Mejico' plant shipping dock for less than the Mejico production plant can. Boo-Yah!

    As a second example - cruel rumor was that P&G cost-cutting along with reduced paper product business came down to shuttering the plant in Cape or a plant in Georgia. The difference was pennies per case / pallet / truckload???? The Georgia plant supposedly closed. Close call for Cape, but how close - from a speculative position? Pennies per whatever would mean an huge swing in local economics. *humble*

    The local news is reporting things are stable with an outlook for 'just peachy' - suggest an appreciation for how close to 'unstable with a trend for the China Syndrome' that this area is riding the fence on would be respectful.

    /*****/

    O.J - my concern with cooperatives is that a fair portion of the areas served by many cooperatives receiving favorable and biased gov't funding and loans are no longer 'rural' - flip, some areas are now fair-sized cities or unincorporated areas with high population densities - no longer truly 'rural' under the original envisionment and charge of REA.

    If REA's serve the majority of the land area in Missouri, then why were the three investor-owned utilities (IOU's) solely targeted in the Renewables proposition? Ah, yeah - 'fair' is relative, only if 'I' win.

    /*****/

    Adidas - Perhaps only a 'delay of game' until the economy has been deemed sufficiently improved.

    Suggest the implementation of cap-n-trade at this point in time would be the economic equivalent of inducing the irrecoverable swirl around the toilet bowl.

    /*****/

    [ Been working on my $5 vocabules (words)- how'd I do? :-)~ ]

    -- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Jul 23, 2010, at 9:00 PM
  • You dont pull the bonnett off your sweat ole granny and you dont talk bad about Stag!

    fxpwt, I'm mixfused about your REA comments. Can you unconfuse me?

    -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 23, 2010, at 11:57 PM
  • I agee with fxpwt that it is just a delay tactic.

    Look at Obamacare, they took out "public option" to pass it, and now they are already talking about bringing in public option to save money (?!)

    -- Posted by Skeptic1 on Sat, Jul 24, 2010, at 8:43 AM
  • OJ -

    tryin' to remember where I was going there, I've slept since then :-)

    OK - as I understand things, REA's were set up to push electrical service into areas where IOU's would not go due to lack of profitability - the cost of the many miles of wire and related service structure would not be offset by the quantity of sales and related profits from those areas. The government steps in and provides low-interest loans and other incentives not available to IOU's in order to electrify 'rural America'. Not-for-profit cooperatives were organized and chartered, where the customers are the owners, and any profits or excess margins are rolled back into the system operations or are returned to the customer/owner. Fine, great idea, all well and good.

    The observation I struggle with is that many of these formerly rural areas have developed into subdivisions, small one-stoplight townships have grown into cities, and so on - essentially becoming competitive with IOU's on the number of electric meters-per-mile metric and related profit availability. Is it really fair and within the original vision of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to continue to provide what are essentially government subsidies for these developed areas that can now standalone as profitable? In my opinion, no - but then again, my opinion and $5 (plus tax) will get ya a foot-long sub sammich.

    The second point trying to be made was the 'fairness' in targeting only the IOU's for the Renewables proposition? It seems that a geographically-significant portion of the state voting population were able to express their wishes on a matter that wouldn't affect them one way or the other - kind of a "do as I say, not as I'm going to have to do" thing. Admittedly, I have a warped or otherwise non-mainstream perspective on just about everything - but that just didn't seem right, or fair.

    Suggest when justifying business operations - IOU's must focus their hard-sell to the final approving body - the PSC, made up of mostly lawyers. REAs, by design, must focus on selling their case to their final approving body - their respective boards, made up of member-owner-customers - which may explain the perceived better sharing of information at the customer level.

    -- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Jul 24, 2010, at 8:47 AM
  • "Even Democrats can't repeal that reality."

    Obviously they can, We Regret ... or perhaps they just cannot accept reality unless it's their own agenda or party they're supporting. BTW ... liberals don't envy wealthy liberals because they're just common everyday folks like the rest of us ... you know, the adoration of the Kennedy's, et al? ... and they are only in politics (or private business) to help ... um ... some of us?

    No kidding, Wheels? "The offices are little more than a springboard to wealth.

    And the rest of our elected officials are not a whole lot, if any, better." Now, why on earth would anyone think that? ~laughing~ Oh, and thanks ... your one-liner should be easy enough for anyone to comprehend: "Guess who then pays that additional cost." And I also noticed this past month or so how many liberals aren't really liberal ... anymore. How convenient? ~laughing~

    Wow ... "... Southern Democrats, almost all of whom are republicans now (sadly because of democratic support for civil rights.)" ... Talk about people putting forth 'opinions!'

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jul 24, 2010, at 5:47 PM
  • Check out the story on Drudge about how much they spend on bottled water and food expense. I didn't see Vandeven's favorite McDonalds listed there anywhere.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 24, 2010, at 6:01 PM
  • I don't want to know that, Old J.!

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jul 24, 2010, at 7:43 PM
  • "Wow ... "... Southern Democrats, almost all of whom are republicans now (sadly because of democratic support for civil rights.)" ... Talk about people putting forth 'opinions!'"

    Surely you are old enough to remember that the South was solidly Democratic and against any manner of integration in the 50's and early 60's. So you should be able to recall that those same people turned into republicans rather than support civil rights. It is not an opinion, its fact.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 24, 2010, at 9:02 PM
  • A few more facts (not opinions)to refresh your memory.

    Solid South refers to the electoral support of the Southern United States for the Democratic Party candidates for nearly a century from 1877, the end of the Reconstruction, to 1964, during the middle of the Civil Rights era. The first break in the "Solid South" was when Missouri goes for Republican Theodore Roosevelt in the 1904 election.

    The Democratic Party was also a vehicle of segregation in the South during the time when whites fully controlled the Party, whose primaries were tantamount to election in most of the region. Erosion of the South's largely one-party apparatus, as blacks began regaining voting rights and identifying with the Democratic Party, rendered the region free to return to the two-party competition which characterizes the United States as a whole and which had even characterized the South prior to the American Civil War and Reconstruction.

    Democrats won by large margins in the South in every presidential election from 1876 to 1948 except for 1928, when candidate Al Smith, a Catholic and a New Yorker, ran on the Democratic ticket; even in that election, the divided South provided Smith with nearly three-fourths of his electoral votes. Beginning in about 1950, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South by way of its "Southern strategy".

    Please note.

    Today, the South is considered a stronghold of the Republican Party at all levels above the local level, and even there Republicans have made generally increasing inroads. Political scientists have often cited a southernization of politics following the fall of the Solid South.

    The Democratic dominance originated in many white Southerners' animosity towards the Republican Party's stance in favor of political rights for Blacks during Reconstruction and Republican economic policies such as the high tariff and the support for continuing the gold standard, both of which were seen as benefiting Northern industrial interests at the expense of the agrarian South in the 19th century. It was maintained by the Democratic Party's willingness to back Jim Crow laws and racial segregation.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 24, 2010, at 9:44 PM
  • So you should be able to recall that those same people turned into republicans rather than support civil rights. It is not an opinion, its fact.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 24, 2010, at 9:02 PM

    BS

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Jul 24, 2010, at 11:52 PM
  • The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

    By party

    The original House version:[10]

    Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)

    Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

    Cloture in the Senate:[11]

    Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)

    Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

    The Senate version:[10]

    Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)

    Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

    The Senate version, voted on by the House:[10]

    Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)

    Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 12:05 AM
  • "So you should be able to recall that those same people turned into republicans rather than support civil rights. It is not an opinion, its fact."

    Sorry, didn't mean to offend you. But no, I don't remember ever reading anything factual saying 'This is why all we Democrats changed to the Republican Party.' And not sure I understand why Democrats would leave their party over one issue ... to join a party which they must not have felt much 'kinship' to in the first place?

    Unless ... like so many of us, they supported a party because they inherited it from their parents, etc., without realizing what the party 'stood for' until the civil rights movement came up? ... In which case, they may not have been 'true Democrats,' making it easier to change ...

    Not sure but thinking if that is indeed a fact ... gee, they weren't really very 'solid' Democrats in the first place ... just 'southerners?' Anyway, it would be interesting to know who wrote the article/piece that you mentioned, commonsense ... and where he/she found the solid facts to back up the reason for the 'party change.'

    Sort of have to smile though ... because I've been trying to think why I changed from the Democrat to the Republican Party, and then years later realized that I couldn't agree with or accept all of either party's 'agenda.'

    -- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 1:04 AM
  • "This is why all we Democrats changed to the Republican Party."

    Not all individual Democrats. But before the early 60's, southern politicians were overwhelmingly Democrats. Now they are almost all Republicans. The source for "Solid Democratic South" was Wikipedia.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 5:10 AM
  • Common

    The reason they changed was because their party was taken over by left nut cases. I remember when there wasn't that much difference between the parties. The old Democrats would be ashamed. It is the same with the Republicans going away from center.

    But you did try the worn out ploy of the Democrats to paint anyone not with you racist. I'm glad you are doing it. It shows that is the only ammo you have left. Pretty weak if you asked me.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 9:39 AM
  • It makes no difference whatsoever to me why democrats are changing parties recently. My only point is that many southern democrats changed parties because of the civil rights movement. If you don't believe in civil rights, that's your prerogative. As I said before, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

    See below.

    Beginning in about 1950, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South by way of its "Southern strategy".

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 2:30 PM
  • Common

    See below:

    BS The Republicans were the ones voting FOR it.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 4:56 PM
  • Maybe you could see things better if you removed the dark (opaque) glasses. One last time, the southern democrats who voted against civil rights left the democratic party as black Americans joined it. I assume you understand "white flight." Yes there were a majority of republicans who voted for civil rights, but there were very few in the south. The fact is white democrats left their party in the 60's because of civil rights issues. If that bothers you, sorry but that's your problem.

    All of this has nothing whatsoever to do with republicans and democrats today. All I ever said that Bob Hope was probably talking about southern democrats who converted to the republican party.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 8:15 PM
  • Common

    I guess you don't have proof.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 25, 2010, at 8:25 PM
  • According to Wikipedia, A larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the bill, while neither party saw much support from their Southern members.

    "Vote totals

    Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

    The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%).

    Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%-29%).

    The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%).

    The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%).

    By party

    The original House version:

    Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)

    Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

    Cloture in the Senate:

    Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)

    Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

    The Senate version:

    Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)

    Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

    The Senate version, voted on by the House:[10]

    Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)

    Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

    By party and region:

    Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

    The original House version:

    Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)

    Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

    Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)

    Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

    The Senate version:

    Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)

    Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)

    Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)

    Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%)"

    It strikes me as illogical to assume that racist Democrats would run from a party that supported the measure 61%-39% in favour of a party that supported the measure 80%-20%, thinking their views would find a home there.

    This is merely a canard perpetuated by the Democrats to portray Democrats as 'open-minded' and Republicans as 'racists'.

    It is worth noting that the late Senator Robert Byrd, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, opposed the nominations of Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only remained a Democrat throughout his career, but was considered one of its most respected members.

    Democrats like to point to David Duke as evidence of the Republican's racist connections, but it should be noted that Duke was a Democrat until 1980, and was never elected to nationwide office by either party.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM
  • It is extremely strange that some people seem to get so upset about this, and so sensitive, possibly because of a guilty conscience.

    All I said is that many southern democrats left their party and joined the republican party in the 50's and early 60's. This is not a rumor nor a hoax, not promulgated by democrats, it is simply a fact of life.

    Those particular democrats left not expecting the republican party to embrace their views (except possibly in some southern states) but because the democratic party embraced civil rights and was being joined by black Americans.

    There is an applicable story told by Charles Barkley the former NBA player, who was to have said to his mother that he was thinking about joining the republican party. His mother told him that he should not do that because the republican party was for rich people. Charles said he thought about that for a few minutes and the said something like, wait a second, I am a rich people.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 1:31 PM
  • commonsensematters wrote:

    "All I said is that many southern democrats left their party and joined the republican party in the 50's and early 60's. This is not a rumor nor a hoax, not promulgated by democrats, it is simply a fact of life."

    I'm not sure that it is a fact of life. I grew up in the Southern part of Missouri, and most of the old Democrats remained Democrats throughout their life. However, many of their children grew up to be Republicans, and many Republicans moved into the area, even as many Democrats moved out. To say that 'the South has shifted towards Republicans' is not the same as saying that 'Southern Democrats have begun to vote Republican'. I do not know that there is any evidence to support such a vote change.

    Many life-long party voters, when they become disenchanted with their party, quit voting. Meanwhile, many who had been disenchanted with their party begin to vote when they see momentum in their direction. This accounts for much 'voter shift' but is not indicative of shifting of votes by individuals, as your post implies has occurred.

    It's all in the phrasing.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 2:05 PM
  • Common,

    You said just a little more than your 1:31pm post indicates....

    Sat at 9:44PM you said the following to try and hold the Republicans partially responsible for the flight from the Democratic Party. How about you explaining the Republicans "Southern Strategy". Was it the Republicans support for civil rights that brought the fallen away Democrats on board? Was that the "strategy" you speak of?

    "Beginning in about 1950, the national Democratic Party's support of the civil rights movement significantly reduced Southern support for the Democratic Party and allowed the Republican Party to make gains in the South by way of its "Southern strategy". "

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 2:35 PM
  • It's also interesting that the Democratic Party would be seen as supporting Civil Rights in the 1950's, and Republicans as opposing them, when it was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, who suggested the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. The Civil Rights Act of 1957, curiously enough, was effectively killed by the Senate leader, Lyndon B. Johnson.

    The Republican position in the 'Southern Strategy' was based more on States' Rights than on racism. That which Wikipedia refers to as the Democrat Party's 'growing support for Civil Rights' was perceived by many Southerners as the Democrat Party's growing support for centralization and socialist policies.

    While it may be true, to some extent, that some Republicans have vieled racism behind the States' Rights issue, I believe it is true to a larger degree that Democrats have used the very legitimate concerns over the issue of States' Rights to tar opponents of centralization of power as 'racists'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 2:53 PM
  • Lee Atwater said a lot of things about it, much of which essentially said that the Southern Strategy got to the core of States' issues, even if that bordered on race issues. You really can't seperate the two: forced busing and voters' issue required federal intervention in States' issues.

    Michael Steele has become a sort of apologist, and as such has lost a lot of credibility on GOP issues. Nor was he a player at the time of the 'Southern Strategy', so I doubt that his knowledge is anything near first-hand.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 5:07 PM
  • It is worth noting that the late Senator Robert Byrd, who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, opposed the nominations of Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 9:54 AM

    Also the Klan was the strong arm for the southern Democrats. I have family down there and several of them were (and I think a couple still are) Klan but also very hard core Democrats.

    All this is about misdirection to pull you away from the real issues. It is the same strategy the Democrats have used in every election. They are good at it and with the help of the mainstream media they can bury about any issue.

    Their big problem is people like me. I don't trust anyone when it come to politics and I see though smokescreens.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 7:07 PM
  • "I see though smokescreens."

    But you didn't even know that Bob Hope was talking about southern democrats/republicans.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 8:16 PM
  • Give proof common.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 26, 2010, at 9:52 PM

Respond to this thread