>(And yes, tax revenue per capita is the correct thing to compare with benefits received.)
I'm more inclined towards Yglesias' counter argument in the second link, in that the US has plenty of room to raise taxation but that's a reasonably persuasive argument. As a Canadian, I still think Americans whine about their taxation rates a bit too much, but I suppose we have a better end of the deal.
>Actually, they didn't - conservatives were driven out of the South after reconstruction by an alliance of southern democrats (who were populists) and progressives
>The vast majority of the opposition came from Southern Dems.
Now you're mixing terms.
1) No one can speak for Progressives in the 1910s. For one, I am simply not informed enough but… I doubt anyone had a racially enlightened point of view at the time. More recent scientific developments have discredited the racial theories of the time and so everyone changed their mind.
2) You're being disingenuous. Being a Democrat does not mean you're progressive; look at the modern day Blue Dog Democrats. If they opposed civil rights, they were certainly not progressives.
> I'm more inclined towards Yglesias' counter argument in the second link, in that the US has plenty of room to raise taxation
Whether the US could have more revenue doesn't address my point that the US has sufficient revenue to satisfy the demands of folks asking for more revenue. Given that, it's unclear why more revenue would satisfy those demands.
The US govt spends more, per person, than does Canada, yet we get fewer benefits. When that changes, we can talk about more spending per person.
> I doubt anyone had a racially enlightened point of view at the time.
Based on what? Mark Twain certainly shows otherwise.
> If they opposed civil rights, they were certainly not progressives.
Sure they were. In fact, today's progressives claim them as their ancestors. Yes, including Wilson, Holmes, and Sanger.
> How are you seriously trying to pretend that these policies were the bastions of "progressives and their allies"?
I'm not pretending - it's the truth.
Bull Connor, the Birmingham, AL sheriff famous for firehosing civil rights demonstrators, was a prominent Democrat in AL and was a delegate to five Democratic National Conventions (1948, 1956, 1960, 1964, and 1968). He wasn't the exception - he was the rule.
I know who instituted Jim Crow and how the political alliances of the time worked. (Do you really think that Republicans had political power in Jim Crow south?) I also know who segegated the US military. I also know who wrote "Three generations of imbiciles are enough" in a Supreme Court decision upholding forced sterilization. I've also looked at who voted for and against the various civil rights acts in the 60s. I know that Davis-Bacon was intended to keep poor blacks from moving north and taking jobs from white union members.
In each case, it's Democrats in alliance with Progressives.
That's just for starters.
I note that you haven't bothered to cite anything more than outrage. Feel free to list two things that Repubs have done that compares to the elements of that list.
Republicans at the time weren't saints, but they were considerably better on race issues than Democrats and Progressives. That's why MLK was a republican.
It helps to pay attention instead of parroting dogma. For example, do you know what the "slaves count for 3/5 of a person" clause in the constitution is about and who wanted the number to be 1 and who wanted the number to be 0?
It's a clause for determining the number of representatives that a state gets in the House of Represenatives. The slave states wanted slaves to be counted as 1 while the not-slave states wanted slaves to not count at all. 1 gives the slave states more representatives while 0 gives them less....
Given that, would it be better for the number to be 1 or 0?
I'm more inclined towards Yglesias' counter argument in the second link, in that the US has plenty of room to raise taxation but that's a reasonably persuasive argument. As a Canadian, I still think Americans whine about their taxation rates a bit too much, but I suppose we have a better end of the deal.
>Actually, they didn't - conservatives were driven out of the South after reconstruction by an alliance of southern democrats (who were populists) and progressives
>The vast majority of the opposition came from Southern Dems.
Now you're mixing terms.
1) No one can speak for Progressives in the 1910s. For one, I am simply not informed enough but… I doubt anyone had a racially enlightened point of view at the time. More recent scientific developments have discredited the racial theories of the time and so everyone changed their mind.
2) You're being disingenuous. Being a Democrat does not mean you're progressive; look at the modern day Blue Dog Democrats. If they opposed civil rights, they were certainly not progressives.
In fact, the geographic distribution you're describing matches a certain recent election map… http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
>Feel free to explain why poor white and asian kids should give up slots to middle class blacks.
I'm arguing for wealth redistribution. I haven't got a well-formed opinion on affirmative action; you'll have to take that up with someone else.