Reid: How could ANY Hispanic be Republican?

I've wondered how anyone could be a republican now for years. Working men have seen the results of the republican policies since Reagan, which has devastated our manufacturing base and made the poor even poorer.

BTW, if I lived in Nevada I would certainly vote for Reid before I would vote for that moron Angle!

 

You are conveniently over looking Reid's racism here.

Hispanics are no more a monolithic group politically than any other ethnic group.

Of course - in my personal experience white liberals tend to be racist - so why should Reid be any different?

 

This is truly the most ignorant statement in the thread, but I'm used to seeing you put your foot in your mouth.

 

Liberal white people think that they have to help ethnic minorities because non-whites are incapable of caring for themselves.

White liberal racism - disquised as compassion - has destroyed the American Black family.

 

Another ignorant posting!

I have never heard any of my liberal friends say that non-whites are incapable of caring for themselves. In fact, I live in a neighborhood that is over 90% Hispanic. These people work hard and take care of themselves quite well.

As far as black families are concerned, what you say is meaningless, and you know it.

 

Robert,

Which Reagan policies resulted in the devastation of the manufacturing base and made the poor poorer? Last year we produced 19.9% of the worlds manufacturing output, above China's 18.6%, keeping us in the lead for 110 years straight (Peter Marsh in the Financial Times, June 20, 2010). US manufacturing output actually reached an all time high in 2006, under Bush. While we are expected to lose the 110 year crown to China next year (2011), we have not lost our manufacturing base and Reagan (or Clinton or Bush) cannot be blamed for getting rid of manufacturing.

So, with these facts, can you tell me which policy enacted by the Republicans resulted in the devastation of our manufacturing since we have been #1 in the world for 110 years straight and we reached our height under the 2nd term of a Republican Administration (during Reagan we also reached a height never before seen until his time)?

I think plenty of criticism is valid when discussing Bush and Reagan. I think this criticism is not.

BTW, as a Hispanic I find Reid's comments offensive. I am a Hispanic by ethnicity, but I am not a blind sheep who happens to only think monolithically because I am a Hispanic.

 

My grandmother is from El Salvador and she's a Republican.

 

Of course the white liberals don't say it - they are much to PC.

Instead what they do is set up welfare progams, hiring and admission quotas, lower school standards, etc.

All because they believe that the non-white is not as capable as they are.

And are they all Democrats?

Or do they have as much diversity of political thought as any other ethnic group?

As a white liberal what else could you possibly think?

The compassionate white liberal welfare program created a dual class Black society.

Those who got trapped on the white liberal plantation by accepting welfare...

And those who decided that they were not inferior to whites and obtained and education and worked for what they have.

 

Prior to the early 1980's the blue collar workers here in the Houston area did well. There was plenty of work, and the pay was good. Since then, the work has been spotty at best, and the pay has not kept up with the rest of the economy. Now, things are finally getting a little better, but not much. The last company I worked for had over 70% of their work done in China. Only what was absolutely necessary was done here in the U.S.

 

Non-responsive.

Which Reagan policies?

 

You make a good point. Consider the child of liberal policies family planning. Why were black urban families targeted by this organization for abortions? There is a view that democratic political figures have been for some years been promoting a hidden Eugenics program on Urban Blacks disguised as Family planning. Liberal idiology seems to have demolished the African American family structure which only recently is making a rebound.
a resource on this is a book by Edwin Black "War against the Week". An interesting read. Here people Like Margaret Sanger are revealed for what they were doing

 

You didn't answer my questions or respond to my facts that I presented. The fact is:

1. Under Reagan, manufacturing output reached a pinnacle for his time.
2. Under Bush II, we have seen the highest manufacturing output ever.
3. For you to say things are "getting better" is actually at the same time when manufacturing output is doing the worse we have seen in years.

Again, I have cited facts not "opinions" or what I may have seen in a certain limited regional area (Heck, I live in WV, we have not seen any good year since the 1960's). The facts remain, manufacturing output reached highs in Reagan and Bush II.

BTW, job loss and output are two different things. You said they devastated manufacturing, I have proven they spurred on manufacturing. The facts show, their policies helped.

 

Reagan's Laisez Fair Economics created a long period of properity for the country. Unfortunately, the down side was corruption and greed but he did pull us out of the problematic 70's

 

What! Do you think this is a court of law or a deposition?

You and your friend Ruiz can throw statistics out there all day, it doesn't change the fact that the manufacturing sector here in Houston suffered during the Reagan years. In all the machine shops I have worked in, you would be hard pressed to find a machinist who would look favorably on Ronald Wilson Reagan. In fact, the last place I worked at, one man there celebrated June 5th, the day Reagan died. I told him I thought this was a bit much, but he didn't care what I thought. He absolutely hated Reagan.

 

The nature of our national industry changed. Reagan didn't pick on manufacturers. Corporate america decided manufacturing in this country was less cost effective than outsourcing. This is due to regulation, and laws primarily passed by a democratic congress interfering with operations of business.

 

"The Reagan years" and "Reagan's policies" are two different things.

Please, try to put a little more thought into this.

 

Thinking,

There were policies I supported by Reagan (decrease in the top marginal rate and increase in the early years on interest rates). Both were great for the economy, one was extremely unpopular. I would support both today.

Yet, I do not see how these policies made people greedy or corrupt. I believe people have always been greedy and corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9). Every opportunity creates another opportunity for greed and corruption. Reagan, nor any other policy maker, created greed, they hopefully create opportunities which some men, because of their wickedness, do evil things.

 

It was the lack of government oversite. Sorbanes Oxely was too little to late. And not enough oversite power to the FTC either. That allowed people to behave in any manner they see fit and the likelihood of getting caught minimal. Note I'm suggesting oversight not new regulation. Big difference.

 

Robert,

I am not going to argue facts against your opinion. Yes, in West Virginia we have faced a horrible 40 years under both Dem's and Republicans (though Dem's, for the vast majority of the time, has run both chambers and held the Governor's spot). Yet, your local experience does not coincide with the facts of the general economy.

You stated that Reagan "devastated manufacturing." I have proven he did not. You may not like Reagan, but you must give him credit for his policies that helped increase manufacturing output, as I give credit to the policies of Clinton that did the same (I actually think Clinton's solution could be one fo the top 5 solutions for getting us out of the modern recession).

The only group I hear that says Reagan "devastated" manufacturing were Unions, not economists nor many Democratic friends. Unions blamed most any downturn on Reagan (or Bush) and often despite facts. Actually, if you take the facts, manufacturing increased. Unions opposed them because they were not given preferential treatment. Unions usually have the audacity to equating: Unions=Manufacturing. That is not true. Manufacturing output=Manufacturing. In that regards, Reagan helped manufacturing.

I cannot address your "localized" experience. I can, however, address that you are wrong in saying Reagan devastated manufacturing. He may not have given unions preferential treatment, but he was good for manufacturing.