Bush bashing during King's funeral.

Originally posted by loam
Ironic, don't you think? ...considering his attendance of the funeral alone was politically motivated. It has been well reported that he wasn't even planning on going... until of course he was convinced of its political value.

If I was President Bush I wouldn't want to go either. But the fact that he sat there, knowing this was going to happen, and took it like a man speaks a lot about his character. Political value heh? What's the President need political value for anymore?

It was classless to spout off some of the things said during that funeral. But, let them dig their own grave. Pardon the pun.

*edit*

I love that picture. Look at Laura Bush's face... I swear I can tell what she is thinking.

"Oh my God... These people are friggin' nuts!"

[edit on 8-2-2006 by LostSailor]

..... are painfully unaware of what other cultures are on about; this is a perfect example. Within African American culture, sermons, funerals and overall church get togethers have been the seat of ideas commerce for that community since slavery. Get over yourselfs and quit looking at the world through your fractured prism.....that's the root cause of the ills this country faces today.
"Bush Bashing" is hyperbole and completely inaccurate.
I'm suprised, no dissappointed, that any of the Bush clan was there. THAT WAS THE BASHING that took place - shameless unapologetic oligarchs who've taken every policy postion possible to target people of color, domestically and internationally.

Originally posted by LostSailor
It turned into another racist endeavor by a black preacher. Spouting crap about poor blacks... Man... It's just making me queasy thinking baout how low they will stoop.

Do you know who this woman was??? She was the wife of the KING of the civil rights movement!! She was the QUEEN of the FIGHT for equal rights for black people! And your're calling her funeral racist?

That's freaking hilarious!

I'd also like to know what specifically was said that was Bush-bashing

"She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar. We know now that there were no weapons of mass destruction over there," Lowery said.

You call this Bush-bashing? Are you Bush supporters offended? Mrs. King was anti-war. Not mentioning that at her funeral would be like not mentioning it at Cindy Sheehan's funeral. It's part of who she was.

It seems you would have Bush protected from any affront. Just realize that the radical cartoon-haters are wanting the same thing! You all sound like a bunch of cartoon-haters who are 'offended' because somebody said something you didn't like.

Well, too bad! Get over it.

"For the war, billions more, but for the poor, not one dollar more."

Don't you love the way they spin this, and the crowd on hand just eats it up because that's what they wanted to hear. Reality is far removed from the words in the speech.

Congressional Budget Office - The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2007 to 2016
Mandatory—also called direct—spending makes up over half of the federal budget. In 2005, mandatory outlays were $1.3 trillion, a figure that will nearly double by 2016 under CBO’s projections From1994 to 2004, mandatory spending increased at an average annual rate of 5.6 percent. It grew by 6.7 percent in 2005. Over the next 10 years, it is expected to climb at a faster rate than the economy—5.8 percent per year, on average

Mandatory spending is dominated by income-support payments and health care subsidies for the elderly, disabled, and the poor.

Outlays for defense rose by $39 billion; CBO estimates that about 40 percent of that amount represented a boost in spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for other activities considered part of the war on terrorism.

To sum things up briefly, Mandatory spending, which as noted above is mainly income support type payments, increased by $83 Billion in 2005, while discretionary outlays increased by $73 billion. Ironically $10 billion of the discretionary spending was towards disaster relief from Hurricanes while education and health programs increased by $7 billion. In total $33 billion of the discretionary spending was not related to defense.

If we added that to the other side it would show that there was an increase of $116 billion of government assistance, and only an increase of $39 billion for defense related spending. So now who's telling the truth, and who is just spewing hate and lies. Check the facts and find out for yourself.

Not a penny more indeed. More like billions and billions more for the poor.


Edit to add...watch how the liberals will gloss over this point and focus on other issues.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by dbates]

Odd that...dbates.

Source
The broader budget bill would slice almost $50 billion from the deficit by the end of the decade by curbing rapidly growing benefit programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies. Republicans said reining in such programs whose costs spiral upward each year automatically s the first step to restoring fiscal discipline.

To me, that looks like them cutting the amount of money going to the poor. How can they both increase it and decrease it? Magic...

Originally posted by Odium
Odd that...dbates.

To me, that looks like them cutting the amount of money going to the poor. How can they both increase it and decrease it? Magic...

Yes, this is a classic spin tatitc. Read closely. The cut is a cut in the increase. The actual documents will tell you something like "Instead of increasing spending by $10 billion, we're only going to increase spending by $5 billion."

Then the spin cycle begins. "Republicans are cutting the money to the poor by $5 billion!". Reality is that the spending is still going up by $5 billion. How is that a cut? Typical liberal talking point.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by dbates]

I have to say that Clinton was a stand-up guy at the funeral. He made some fantastic points as he called everyone to remember King not as a symbol, but as a human being. Clinton pulled the political rally back and turned it back into a funeral, and it was remarkable.

Thanks, President Clinton

President Bush love to favor in his budget the poor, Everything in Bushes budget is all about the defense budget over the need of mostly poor and on top of that black Americans.

Bush doesn’t say we are cutting the budget on food stamps or education because that will be to damaging to the Republican Party image.

But the budget calls for Tightening Eligibility rather than Cutting eligibility it sounds less harsh.

But the true is that this means that 36 billion dollars a year on food stamps was reduced to 57 seven million this years alone, and more Tightening means less eligible families to receive help.

Occurs we all know form where most of these families come from.

For the 2006 year it was 150 programs eliminated now is almost another 140 and some more? Yes we all know how nice the Bush budget to get money for his war is to the poor and needy in American that happens to be brown.

Yes Billions and billions we all know were they are going.

Your are falling for it Dbates.

So where is all this money going then? Poverty has gone up, not down...
If they are intending to cut the deficit, by adding 10billion more and removing 5billion of that it still means they are spending 5billion more. Thus not reducing it...

If you are spending more, than you can't reduce the deficit. Meaning the bill, which was aimed to do that was a lie... a lie by the Government...my God!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Do you know who this woman was??? She was the wife of the KING of the civil rights movement!! She was the QUEEN of the FIGHT for equal rights for black people! And your're calling her funeral racist?

Care to insult my intelligence anymore? Do I know who this woman was? C'mon... That's just low. I don't claim to a genius but.... Good God woman.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You call this Bush-bashing? Are you Bush supporters offended? Mrs. King was anti-war. Not mentioning that at her funeral would be like not mentioning it at Cindy Sheehan's funeral. It's part of who she was.

Then you insert a random quote and claim that it was what I was talking about. Quit with the spin already... To make you happy I will quote a few lines from the article that I think could have been left out.

"But Coretta knew, and we know," Lowery continued, "That there are weapons of misdirection right down here," he said, nodding his head toward the row of presidents past and present. "For war, billions more, but no more for the poor!" The crowd again cheered wildly.
www.drudgereport.com...

We only have to recall the color of the faces of those in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi,"
www.drudgereport.com...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It seems you would have Bush protected from any affront. Just realize that the radical cartoon-haters are wanting the same thing! You all sound like a bunch of cartoon-haters who are 'offended' because somebody said something you didn't like.

I'll say it once more. There is a time and a place to attack a Presidents credibility. I, personally, don't think this was the proper time or place. That's my opinion.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by LostSailor]

Originally posted by marg6043
For the 2006 year it was 150 programs eliminated now is almost another 140 and some more?

Are you just pulling these numbers out of the air? I just showed you a link to the Congressional budget documentation to back up my claims. Do you have any? Even a better question, why are you side-stepping the issue?

Fact! (as noted in my source) Government income assistance spending increased at least twice as much as spending on defense. Now as for the exact programs that are being used, I'm not qualified to say if they are keeping or cutting the right ones. (One of the huge issues with a socialist government) Still, we have to admit that spending on the poor increased by much more than spending on defense. Are you going to dispute that or just argue about what programs are available?

Originally posted by Odium
So where is all this money going then? Poverty has gone up, not down...

BINGO!!! We have a winner!
You sir are correct. Government programs will not help to raise your standard of living. It doesn't matter how much money the government throws at the problem. You have to do this for yourself. This, and not the war in Iraq, is the main difference between Republicans and Democrats.


NOTE:
In keeping with the discussion of the recent funeral comments feel free to jump to the WMD or wire tapping comments. Of course we know who was behind the wiretapping that Carter mentioned. Kennedy. (Really good conspiracy stuff. King assassinated, and Kennedy. Wow!)

[edit on 8-2-2006 by dbates]

So, if putting money towards it doesn't solve a thing, why was the largest drop in poverty [4%] in the United State's in any single year since in 1965. Lowest point in poverty [11.1%] in 1973. Money was spent and it does solve it, the problem is now the money isn't spent in the right area.

clearly, the War on Poverty, which happened during those years had a major effect...and that involved money being spent.

[edit on 8/2/2006 by Odium]

Source
The 2005 defense budget amounted to $401.7 billion, which is an increase of 4% over 2004 and of 35% since 2001.

I couldn't find on your source, an increase of anywhere near that much...I might have missed it though.

[edit on 8/2/2006 by Odium]

NO Dbates I am not making the numbers this is the same trend that Bush has been following since he has been in power.

Originally posted by LostSailor
Care to insult my intelligence anymore? Do I know who this woman was? C'mon... That's just low.

Asking a question insults you? Wow, sorry. I guess it's a good thing I didn't draw a cartoon.

Then you insert a random quote and claim that it was what I was talking about.

That 'random quote' was from the original article. And I was asking another question (sorry - this was before I knew how much you hate that). I was asking if that was what everyone was considering 'Bush-bashing'. And I didn't claim anything, I was asking!

... he said, nodding his head toward the row of presidents past and present.

That's what you get for reading the Drudge report! Watch the video of his talk. Scroll down to "Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery". He does NOT 'nod his head toward the row of presidents'! Talk about spin!

I, personally, don't think this was the proper time or place. That's my opinion.

And, to that, you are certainly entitled.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by loam
Give me a break.

Pot calling the kettle black...

Interesting (Freudian?) choice of words there, loam. Keep evolving and someday you may be able to understand what's really going on.

[edit on 2/8/2006 by centurion1211]

Is that some veiled attempt to insinuate I said something racist? ...or is it that you lack the mental capacity to understand the point I made?

Don't understand the meaning of the phrase??? Look it up....

Don't like the point I made??? Deal with it....

Originally posted by LostSailor
I'll say it once more. There is a time and a place to attack a Presidents credibility. I, personally, don't think this was the proper time or place. That's my opinion.

Still, it was the opinion of most who ACTUALLY knew her to think otherwise... I think BH's cartoon analogy is a good one.

Originally posted by dbates
"For the war, billions more, but for the poor, not one dollar more."

Don't you love the way they spin this, and the crowd on hand just eats it up because that's what they wanted to hear.

I'll address your flawed math in a moment, but does anyone else take the above as somewhat rascist.....with that usage of THEY & what THEY wanted to hear? You from the South, D?

First, apples are apples, oranges are oranges - to jump to equal line comparission of our Defense spending, which is exponentially higher than all other 2nd tier world powers combined, to our Social programs spending, is disingenuous boardering on willfully misleading.

CBO’s projections From1994 to 2004, mandatory spending increased at an average annual rate of 5.6 percent. It grew by 6.7 percent in 2005. Over the next 10 years, it is expected to climb at a faster rate than the economy—5.8 percent per year, on average

Mandatory spending is dominated by income-support payments and health care subsidies for the elderly, disabled, and the poor.

Question – what role do you believe demographics play in spend increases? Answer – a big one. Each of those categories is growing at an historic pace during the GOP “Leadership” of the past 6 years, with the aging Boomers being the only one void of culpability for them. Dramatic increases in the amount of working poor, uninsured Americans, and Americas living below the poverty line are going to spike a “needs” spend. Stuff like that happens in the Trickle Down Economic model – no sustainable jobs for the mid through bottom castes create the out flow somewhere else, as in here.
Textbook fiscal economics says that when a government knows that its expenses will rise in the future, it should start running a surplus now. At first, this surplus should be used to pay off debt, which reduces the government's future interest costs.( Instead, what are we running? Something like $500 - $600 Billion deficits per year!?!) If the government runs out of debt to pay off, it can start to invest in assets such as stocks and bonds, which will yield future income. That's exactly the path the Social Security system, though not the government as a whole, has been following. ( there is no SS crisis, but I’ve said that before). It was exactly the path government ran the last time we had sound fiscal management during the Clinton years.
Here’s the problem – we’re underfunding the US Government by 30 to 40% – that’s a bigger issue than any sector either of us want to focus on – the Military Industrial Complex or “Shiftless” why-can’t-they-grab-their-own-bootstraps-Social Programs.
We have to get some more revenue. we're living in a fantasyland where we imagine that we can have it all- HUGE tax cuts for the top 5% + all these social programs that middle class Americans count on + an aggressive/belligerent/empire expanding unilateralist foreign policy that costs trillions of dollars……………… and it's not possible.

Originally posted by Bout Time
I'll address your flawed math in a moment, but does anyone else take the above as somewhat rascist.....with that usage of THEY & what THEY wanted to hear? You from the South, D?

First, apples are apples, oranges are oranges - to jump to equal line comparission of our Defense spending, which is exponentially higher than all other 2nd tier world powers combined

"They" refers to the liberal democratic crowd on hand, and yes I am in the South. I never brought up race one time, but if you want to spin it that way, go ahead. Right back at you with your thoughts that only black people are poor.

I was addressing the fact that Lowery claims that the poor don't get a dollar more. It's "hogwash" (See, I'm southern) You can try diverting the topic into how much other nations spend on defense, or "Tax cuts for the rich" (As if the poor are being taxed) but it doesn't change the fact the the poor are getting large amounts of money. I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I'm comparing dollars to dollars. As a nation the United States spends much, much more on social programs than defense. It's not spending that's preventing the poor from getting help. Maybe the existing programs are bloated government monsters that do more to help the politicians than the poor.

Lowry's comment was a sham and you know it.

from Benevolent Heretic You call this Bush-bashing? Are you Bush supporters offended? Mrs. King was anti-war. Not mentioning that at her funeral would be like not mentioning it at Cindy Sheehan's funeral. It's part of who she was.

She was also a woman whose husband cheated on her. That should have been brought up, as well as at Hillary's funeral when she croaks.

Originally posted by jsobecky
She was also a woman whose husband cheated on her. That should have been brought up, as well as at Hillary's funeral when she croaks.

Well, like I said, we're all entitled to our opinions... If you think that's appropriate...

I won't be inviting you to my funeral, though!