|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 10 2016 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt. The economy was also based around the exploitation of white workers... And it is still the case. Your reasoning is akin to considering a miner who happens to be 16 years old to be responsible for slavery. We have a common responsability to help the poor and the weakest in society, we have no responsability over the crime of a minority of our ancestors.
Theres a HUGE difference between the poor and the literal slaves in a society. Its not a crime of a minority of our ancestors its a crime of all of our ancestors. And we're not trying to even overcome the crime itself but the problem that that crime has created.
You don't jail someone for killing someone else for the actual murder but to stop other people from freely murdering. People are equating guilt of a crime with some sort of needed punishment for it. People are just asking to deal with the societal impact of that crime our ancestors committed.
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
LET THE TWITTER WARS BEGIN
|
On June 10 2016 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt. The economy was also based around the exploitation of white workers... And it is still the case. Your reasoning is akin to considering a miner who happens to be 16 years old to be responsible for slavery.
The economy of the south was dependent on slave labour to a higher degree than it ever was on the exploitation of other groups. As much as you may want to focus more on fighting capitalism than on fighting racism because the former incorporates the latter, there was something unique about slavery (and the slave trade, especially) that one cannot simply sweep under the rug, much like the Shoah/Holocaust was not "just another" genocide.
I think we could say that there are very probably no large-scale societies that have not been dependent socially and economically on creating a subjected class through some form of Othering. But make no mistake, cops are not just shooting blacks on the street because of class. There's also still a bunch of people who just happen to be more trigger-happy when they see dark skin.
|
On June 10 2016 04:29 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 04:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt. There is no guilt to be absolved of. I am not guilty of owning slaves or supporting a slave economy any more than Green is. That's as idiotic and racist as saying all black people should be held accountable every time a black person murders someone. You are guilty of supporting slavery and benifiting from it therefore you have guilt on your hands. The beneficial situation you find yourself in today is due to slave labor. not Just black people but slaves of all people. The problem is that black people had the temerity to not be killed off or shipped back to where they were enslaved.
So anyways I'm going to humor this logic and carry it to some other logical conclusions you can make from the same line of reasoning you're using.
If I am guilty of supporting and benefiting from black slavery because I was born white in this country, then blacks born in this country are guilty of benefiting from white industry and technology and culture without paying for it.
'I want compensation my ancestors didn't work hard and strive for excellence developing amazing things like electricity and computing just so you black people could wake up one day and have free access to purchase an ipod in american dollars when in Africa you'd have to pay much more!'
'Refrigeration, televisions, internet, medicine, cheap food, industrial housing, running water, sewage systems, the list goes on and on. White people have enabled black people to rise beyond what black people were capable of prior to our presence and gave them access to all these technologies for free.'
This is a stupid fucking argument to hold someone responsible for something out of their control and ask for compensation for something you didn't suffer through.
Everyone thinks they're entitled to something because the world is unfair and has wronged them and it's so fucking obnoxious how spoiled people are sometimes.
You didn't go through slavery. I didn't enslave anyone. Stop saying I or the world owes you compensation for something you didn't do you lazy fuck.
Also with regards to inheritance, if you work hard you can give your money or spend it on whoever you like, including your children. It's your money you worked for it you can spend it as you please.
If you murder someone you can't blame your children. They didn't murder anyone, they are not morally responsible for your actions.
They are completely different.
|
On June 10 2016 05:38 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 05:33 WhiteDog wrote:On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt. The economy was also based around the exploitation of white workers... And it is still the case. Your reasoning is akin to considering a miner who happens to be 16 years old to be responsible for slavery. We have a common responsability to help the poor and the weakest in society, we have no responsability over the crime of a minority of our ancestors. Theres a HUGE difference between the poor and the literal slaves in a society. Its not a crime of a minority of our ancestors its a crime of all of our ancestors. And we're not trying to even overcome the crime itself but the problem that that crime has created. You don't jail someone for killing someone else for the actual murder but to stop other people from freely murdering. People are equating guilt of a crime with some sort of needed punishment for it. People are just asking to deal with the societal impact of that crime our ancestors committed.
That there is a difference does not make them responsible... They are victim to a lesser degree and you make them guilty.
The second part of your post mix two thing : the present and the past. Finding responsability in tye descendant of the perpetretor of the past crime are of no concern to me... But those crime still have huge societal effect nowadays : it s those effect that must be adressed.
|
On June 10 2016 05:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 05:17 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2016 05:15 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2016 05:12 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2016 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2016 04:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2016 04:42 Surth wrote:On June 10 2016 04:25 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt. No, no one is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors. I am not responsible for the Dutch slave trade any more then a German is responsible for the holocaust. You say that like it is an obvious thing. But it might not be an obvious thing. If nobody is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, is nobody also also deserving of their inheritance? I ask because I do not know. stills, lets talk about collective guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall 10.000 years ago one caveman bashed in the skull of another. Extrapolate forward and the entire world is guilty of murder. Do we imprison the entire world? The answer is obviously no. Do we all pay penance for this murder? Again, no we obviously don't. We don't imprison a son for the crimes of his father. So why should I be guilty of the crimes of my ancestors? Yes I benefit from from their slave trade but the entire world benefited from their linage not being ended by the sharp edge of a rock 10.000 years ago. Now I certainly understand that what happened was wrong and that the so called "Dutch golden age" is a black mark on our history but to consider any individual or collective guilty of crimes they had 0 influence on is imo preposterous. Yes the 'white man' was responsible for slavery and yes people still suffer from the lingering effects but the way to fight it is to try and make sure it never happens again and that they have the same rights and chances as anyone else. It is not to fight over guilt about something 200 years in the past. The shitty socio-economic place that black people in the USA isn't 200 years the past. They barely had the right to vote 50 years ago. On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt. Slavery ended 200 years ago. Arguing about the 'white mans' current day guilt over slavery is what we were talking about. And again, I, you nor anyone else here, is responsible for blacks not having a vote 50 years ago. Now to be clear I am not saying racism is not a serious problem in the US to this day. It certainly is but I am not guilty of blacks not having a vote 20 years before I was born, some guys great grandfather from being a slave or my great grandfather being a slaver. Instead of pointing blame at those who are blameless, how about you try to fix the problems instead. And the problems are the cause of what? I dare you to say something other then slavery. If you don't acknowledge the cause of a problem how can you solve it? Yes its slavery, grats. you want a cookie? Again, that does not make anyone alive today responsible for slavery or guilty of it... People today responsible for slavery they're responsible for benefiting from it and not acknowledging it. Its the same as Egypt and the pyramids. Everyone knows slavery is responsible for it so no one credits the Egyptians for building them, but they still get a ton of tourism from it.
You must be trolling, no one can be that stupid. Should Egypt pay Israel reparation fees? lol
Collectivism is a left wing construct that I oppose on all realms. Individuals are responsible for their actions; they are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors or other unrelated humans with the same skin color (ej: other whites).
|
On June 10 2016 05:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 04:29 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2016 04:25 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt. There is no guilt to be absolved of. I am not guilty of owning slaves or supporting a slave economy any more than Green is. That's as idiotic and racist as saying all black people should be held accountable every time a black person murders someone. You are guilty of supporting slavery and benifiting from it therefore you have guilt on your hands. The beneficial situation you find yourself in today is due to slave labor. not Just black people but slaves of all people. The problem is that black people had the temerity to not be killed off or shipped back to where they were enslaved. So anyways I'm going to humor this logic and carry it to some other logical conclusions you can make from the same line of reasoning you're using. If I am guilty of supporting and benefiting from black slavery because I was born white in this country, then blacks born in this country are guilty of benefiting from white industry and technology and culture without paying for it. 'I want compensation my ancestors didn't work hard and strive for excellence developing amazing things like electricity and computing just so you black people could wake up one day and have free access to purchase an ipod in american dollars when in Africa you'd have to pay much more!'
'Refrigeration, televisions, internet, medicine, cheap food, industrial housing, running water, sewage systems, the list goes on and on. White people have enabled black people to rise beyond what black people were capable of prior to our presence and gave them access to all these technologies for free.'This is a stupid fucking argument to hold someone responsible for something out of their control and ask for compensation for something you didn't suffer through. Everyone thinks they're entitled to something because the world is unfair and has wronged them and it's so fucking obnoxious how spoiled people are sometimes.
Well sorry that they didn't have the same opportunity as your ancestors because they were literally being enslaved and having their entire continent fucked over by Europe during the scramble for Africa.
And opportunity is the great issue here. A black man or woman born in america has less opportunity given to them then a white man or woman. And its because of Slavery.
|
The problems of black people today are the result of slavery?
That's such a weird line of thought and it also is completely false if you are consequential in your reasoning.
The afro americans of today would have been better of if their ancestors never left Africa.
African people in Africa these days have a better life in general then afro American people in America.
Am just trying to follow this line of thought.
There is a lot to blame and a lot to say about racism and it is a big issue.
But if you are being honest about it, then the conclusion would be that despite all its horrors,slavery has been beneficial for todays afro americans in general. If no slavery they would now grow up in for example somalie.
People will no doubt misunderstand this post and I will get hate for it, but so be it lol.
|
On June 10 2016 05:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 05:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:SAN FRANCISCO — In a victory for gun control advocates, a federal appeals court said Thursday people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the Second Amendment.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or have another good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.
The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel and came in a lawsuit over the denial of concealed weapons permits by a sheriff in San Diego County.
California generally prohibits people from carrying handguns in public without such a permit. State law requires applicants to show good moral character, have good cause and take a training course.
In San Diego County, the sheriff required applicants to show supporting documents such as restraining orders against possible attackers to show good cause for a permit. The requirement prompted a lawsuit by residents who were denied a permit.
During oral arguments before the 9th Circuit panel, Paul Clement, an attorney for the residents, argued that the self-defense standard should be sufficient and asking for more violates the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
California Solicitor General Edward DuMont countered that there was a long and rich tradition of restricting concealed weapons in cities and towns. California officials sought to intervene in the case after the San Diego sheriff declined to appeal.
California officials said loosening concealed weapons permitting standards and allowing more people to carry guns threatens law enforcement officials and endangers the public.
Clement countered that there was no evidence that crime went up in counties such as Fresno and Sacramento that had more permissive "good cause" standards. Source Maybe a silly question but how does this pertain to open carry? Surely open carry should be easier to qualify for then concealed carry. And while you may not get a permit to hide your gun on your person you can still openly wear it. I am confused Oo
Basically here is how it has worked historically:
1) 2nd Amendment was passed, and only applied to the Federal Government (pre 14th amendment this is true of all of the Bill of Rights).
2) Most states adopted some form of the 2nd Amendment into their own Constitutions (as well as much of the other provisions of the BoR). Some also included explicit carve-outs that they could prevent concealed carry.
2A) People argue whether the explicit carve outs indicate that Congress could not regulate concealed carry, or whether they could and these Constitutions were being more explicit.
2B) Regardless, at the time, open carry was the norm, and concealed carry was considered dishonorable and for criminals. Most men who carried at the time open-carried.
3) 14th Amendment, eventually this results in most of the BoR also being applied against the states. This is why the argument of 2A is important for state regulations.
4) Currently there is an argument over Open vs. Concealed carry, and whether each or both can be totally banned by a state. The argument for banning concealed carry is seen in 2B. However, there is an argument that Concealed carry is now the normal way to carry and open carry is considered somewhat intimidating (the car dealerships on the South Side open carry for this reason). Thus courts are wrestling with which regulations are allouw:
A) States can ban all carrying outside the home (not likely to be correct)
B) Both open and concealed carry are Constitutionally required(also not likely to be correct, but more likely than A)
C) Open carry is constitutionally required (possible)
D) Concealed carry is required (possible if the court accepts that concealed is now culturally what open used to be)
E) A state must allow either open or concealed carry, but need not allow both (probably the highest % chance, so long as they don't just outright overruled Heller).
|
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On June 10 2016 05:45 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 05:25 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2016 05:17 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2016 05:15 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2016 05:12 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2016 05:05 Sermokala wrote:On June 10 2016 04:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2016 04:42 Surth wrote:On June 10 2016 04:25 Gorsameth wrote:On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt. No, no one is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors. I am not responsible for the Dutch slave trade any more then a German is responsible for the holocaust. You say that like it is an obvious thing. But it might not be an obvious thing. If nobody is guilty of the crimes of their predecessors, is nobody also also deserving of their inheritance? I ask because I do not know. stills, lets talk about collective guilt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschauer_Kniefall 10.000 years ago one caveman bashed in the skull of another. Extrapolate forward and the entire world is guilty of murder. Do we imprison the entire world? The answer is obviously no. Do we all pay penance for this murder? Again, no we obviously don't. We don't imprison a son for the crimes of his father. So why should I be guilty of the crimes of my ancestors? Yes I benefit from from their slave trade but the entire world benefited from their linage not being ended by the sharp edge of a rock 10.000 years ago. Now I certainly understand that what happened was wrong and that the so called "Dutch golden age" is a black mark on our history but to consider any individual or collective guilty of crimes they had 0 influence on is imo preposterous. Yes the 'white man' was responsible for slavery and yes people still suffer from the lingering effects but the way to fight it is to try and make sure it never happens again and that they have the same rights and chances as anyone else. It is not to fight over guilt about something 200 years in the past. The shitty socio-economic place that black people in the USA isn't 200 years the past. They barely had the right to vote 50 years ago. On June 10 2016 04:23 Sermokala wrote:
Only a few people owned slaves but the economy was built on that slave labor. If you owned a cotton shirt or ate a product with suger in it or were involved in any way with some of those products you were involved in the slave trade and enjoyed their labor. That your ancestors didn't have the opportunity to literally own other people doesn't absolve you of the gilt. Slavery ended 200 years ago. Arguing about the 'white mans' current day guilt over slavery is what we were talking about. And again, I, you nor anyone else here, is responsible for blacks not having a vote 50 years ago. Now to be clear I am not saying racism is not a serious problem in the US to this day. It certainly is but I am not guilty of blacks not having a vote 20 years before I was born, some guys great grandfather from being a slave or my great grandfather being a slaver. Instead of pointing blame at those who are blameless, how about you try to fix the problems instead. And the problems are the cause of what? I dare you to say something other then slavery. If you don't acknowledge the cause of a problem how can you solve it? Yes its slavery, grats. you want a cookie? Again, that does not make anyone alive today responsible for slavery or guilty of it... People today responsible for slavery they're responsible for benefiting from it and not acknowledging it. Its the same as Egypt and the pyramids. Everyone knows slavery is responsible for it so no one credits the Egyptians for building them, but they still get a ton of tourism from it. You must be trolling, no one can be that stupid. Should Egypt pay Israel reparation fees? lol Collectivism is a left wing construct that I oppose on all realms. Individuals are responsible for their actions; they are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors or other unrelated humans with the same skin color (ej: other whites).
im having fun with it. Assuming collectivism is a universal truth -- ie it exists, then we can go opposite direction and take pride in everything our race has contributed. What has the various "white" ethnicities contributed towards human history? Technologies, art, cultures, the modern world? What has the various african ethnicities contributed towards human history? peanut butter? While white man was building rome, and building empires, black man was relaxing in huts? How about the various asian ethnitics, the persian/khazars/arabic ethnicities?
|
On June 10 2016 05:50 pmh wrote:
The problems of black people today are the result of slavery?
That's such a weird line of thought and it also is completely false if you are consequential in your reasoning.
The afro americans of today would have been better of if their ancestors never left Africa.
African people in Africa these days have a better life in general then afro American people in America.
Am just trying to follow this line of thought.
There is a lot to blame and a lot to say about racism and it is a big issue.
But if you are being honest about it, then the conclusion would be that despite all its horrors,slavery has been beneficial for todays afro americans in general. If no slavery they would now grow up in for example somalie.
People will no doubt misunderstand this post and I will get hate for it, but so be it lol.
The african continent is this way mainly due to slavery and colonization tho.
|
On June 10 2016 05:45 GoTuNk! wrote:
Collectivism is a left wing construct that I oppose on all realms. Individuals are responsible for their actions; they are not responsible for the actions of their ancestors or other unrelated humans with the same skin color (ej: other whites).
But collectivism is also a "right wing" construct! And both collectivism and individual responsibility are necessities for our political system. Somewhere in here must be a contradiction! Possibly in enlightenment philosophy! 
By the way, a question: Where the Nazimitläufer responsible for the atrocities of the Nazistate? And were American citizens responsible for the atrocities of the United States (e.g. Hiroshima)? In Nazi Germany, being opposed would in all likelihood get you killed, something that we cannot consider true of American democracy at the same time. The people did directly elect the FDR / Truman ticket, and Truman decided to drop the bomb. Are they reponsible? Are they more responsible than a German, who did not have much chance to "vote" for anything after 1933?
|
On June 10 2016 05:43 Surth wrote:
I think we could say that there are very probably no large-scale societies that have not been dependent socially and economically on creating a subjected class through some form of Othering. But make no mistake, cops are not just shooting blacks on the street because of class. There's also still a bunch of people who just happen to be more trigger-happy when they see dark skin.
13% of your population responsible for 50% of the violence. You cannot stop a personal bias on this. You see one group as more violent over and over, you will likely shoot them at a different rate.
Considering whites are responsible for less than 50% of the violence in America they had
67 or so shot in the same time that blacks had 27. At least half of which were justified killings. Taken into account for crime proportionality, this is fine. Taken into account for general population size, it would be "problematic". But it's not because of what we know of crime proportionality.
Not arguing against bad police conduct, I feel this argument in particular is disingenuous. Police, firefighters, and first responders are attacked and shot at by black communities far more often than their white counterparts.
KwarK linked a good article on actual police abuse. In many of the cases it was from black officers themselves. Which doesn't mean blacks can't be racist against blacks, but... this particular argument I feel is a bad one.
|
On June 10 2016 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:
The african continent is this way mainly due to slavery and colonization tho.
Slavery is still alive in Africa today. One civilization was more advanced and conquered. Do you think the African nations had they been more advanced they would have had the same generosity towards the white civilizations? If they were the explorers and conquerers? We still give aid to Africa to this day and have countless charitable organizations. Africa is a very vast and rich continent as well. Full of forests and jungles and plains and the richest waters on earth. It's far larger than North America and is surrounded by beautiful coast which could be great hubs of industry.
Minus the Sahara Desert. ;p
|
On June 10 2016 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 05:50 pmh wrote:
The problems of black people today are the result of slavery?
That's such a weird line of thought and it also is completely false if you are consequential in your reasoning.
The afro americans of today would have been better of if their ancestors never left Africa.
African people in Africa these days have a better life in general then afro American people in America.
Am just trying to follow this line of thought.
There is a lot to blame and a lot to say about racism and it is a big issue.
But if you are being honest about it, then the conclusion would be that despite all its horrors,slavery has been beneficial for todays afro americans in general. If no slavery they would now grow up in for example somalie.
People will no doubt misunderstand this post and I will get hate for it, but so be it lol.
The african continent is this way mainly due to slavery and colonization tho.
The African continent had slavery before european civilization existed. (Ancient Egypt predates all european civilization)
'Africans' enslaved each other (themselves) long before the age of colonization
It's like a theme of a spoiled internet generation wanting to blame everyone else for their problems.
|
On June 10 2016 05:58 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 05:53 WhiteDog wrote:
The african continent is this way mainly due to slavery and colonization tho.
Slavery is still alive in Africa today. One civilization was more advanced and conquered. Do you think the African nations had they been more advanced they would have had the same generosity towards the white civilizations? If they were the explorers and conquerers? We still give aid to Africa to this day and have countless charitable organizations. Africa is a very vast and rich continent as well. Full of forests and jungles and plains and the richest waters on earth. It's far larger than North America and is surrounded by beautiful coast which could be great hubs of industry. Minus the Sahara Desert. ;p
Don't forget the abundance of natural resources.
|
The Obamacare-fueled fireworks, poison pills and government shutdown threats that have become commonplace in the funding fights of the Obama era may be nowhere to be found this year, if a ho-hum subcommittee vote on a normally contentious appropriations bill is a sign of where things are headed.
The bill, the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill, is usually the site of a variety of partisan flash points, Obamacare funding not the least of them. It provides funding for Health and Human Services as well as the Labor Department, and thus, in the past, has provided an opportunity for Republicans to take swipes at some of the Obama initiatives they hate the most. The funding legislation for FY 2017 that passed out of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Tuesday was the first Labor-HHS appropriations bill in seven years to be cobbled together in a bipartisan fashion, without any new policy riders.
“This isn’t the bill I would have written on my own, and I know it’s not the bill you would have written on your own,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the ranking member of the subcommittee, said at the hearing Tuesday, referring to its chair, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO).
She praised it as a "bipartisan compromise" that “doesn’t include any new policy riders that would have poisoned the bill and made it partisan.”
Blunt’s office cast the bill’s easy passage as part of the GOP’s argument that they can govern responsibly while in charge of the the U.S. Senate.
“Senator Blunt and the Republican leadership have made it a priority to get back to regular order and get to work after the GOP takeover of Senate leadership,” Brian Hart, Blunt’s spokesman, said in an email to TPM. “Senator Blunt and Senator Murray were committed to working together on a bill and focusing on important priorities like funding for cancer and Alzheimer’s research, year-round Pell Grants, and efforts to fight opioid abuse.”
Contrast the happy, bipartisan spirit with last year’s version of legislation, passed after Republicans obtained their Senate majority, which Murray then said “disappointed” her because it would “would hurt families and communities.”
That bill dismantled funding for the HHS portions of Obamacare while proposing major cuts to other federal health programs, and would have likely drawn a veto threat from the administration. Murray said that it had "no chance of becoming law and only push us closer to another budget crisis."
(The bill was eventually cast aside when Congress went with an omnibus to fund the government).
A senior GOP aide told Morning Consult ahead of Tuesday’s vote that, “We will fund all of the things we need to fund to try to keep it bipartisan,” even if it attracts the heat of hardliners like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led a government shutdown over Obamacare funding in 2013.
Source
|
On June 10 2016 05:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2016 04:51 zlefin wrote:
what actions to make up for it are you proposing sermo? Redo the homestead act for modern times. Have the government "buy" foreclosed houses in Detroit. And offer them to Poor families to move to these homes for free on conditions like you have to live there and improve the equity on the home by X and not do crimes.
a home is not a farm; it's not an innately productive asset. If they can't fidn jobs in the area, housing them will do no good.
Also, aren't there already plenty of housing support programs?
|
On June 10 2016 06:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Obamacare-fueled fireworks, poison pills and government shutdown threats that have become commonplace in the funding fights of the Obama era may be nowhere to be found this year, if a ho-hum subcommittee vote on a normally contentious appropriations bill is a sign of where things are headed.
The bill, the Labor-Health and Human Services appropriations bill, is usually the site of a variety of partisan flash points, Obamacare funding not the least of them. It provides funding for Health and Human Services as well as the Labor Department, and thus, in the past, has provided an opportunity for Republicans to take swipes at some of the Obama initiatives they hate the most. The funding legislation for FY 2017 that passed out of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Tuesday was the first Labor-HHS appropriations bill in seven years to be cobbled together in a bipartisan fashion, without any new policy riders.
“This isn’t the bill I would have written on my own, and I know it’s not the bill you would have written on your own,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the ranking member of the subcommittee, said at the hearing Tuesday, referring to its chair, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO).
She praised it as a "bipartisan compromise" that “doesn’t include any new policy riders that would have poisoned the bill and made it partisan.”
Blunt’s office cast the bill’s easy passage as part of the GOP’s argument that they can govern responsibly while in charge of the the U.S. Senate.
“Senator Blunt and the Republican leadership have made it a priority to get back to regular order and get to work after the GOP takeover of Senate leadership,” Brian Hart, Blunt’s spokesman, said in an email to TPM. “Senator Blunt and Senator Murray were committed to working together on a bill and focusing on important priorities like funding for cancer and Alzheimer’s research, year-round Pell Grants, and efforts to fight opioid abuse.”
Contrast the happy, bipartisan spirit with last year’s version of legislation, passed after Republicans obtained their Senate majority, which Murray then said “disappointed” her because it would “would hurt families and communities.”
That bill dismantled funding for the HHS portions of Obamacare while proposing major cuts to other federal health programs, and would have likely drawn a veto threat from the administration. Murray said that it had "no chance of becoming law and only push us closer to another budget crisis."
(The bill was eventually cast aside when Congress went with an omnibus to fund the government).
A senior GOP aide told Morning Consult ahead of Tuesday’s vote that, “We will fund all of the things we need to fund to try to keep it bipartisan,” even if it attracts the heat of hardliners like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who led a government shutdown over Obamacare funding in 2013. Source
Gotta love the GOP finally being bipartisan (though the motives are hilariously suspect)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
