What I Wish Lott Had Said

I wish that Trent Lott had just admitted what he actually meant. He’s lying in these false apologies and we all know it.

Here’s what I wish he’d said:

“You know what? Those were racist comments. The Dixiecrat platform was a racist, segregationist platform and I supported it 50 years ago. I supported segregation in our nation. I fought for segregation in my fraternity. But I was wrong.

“I know that racism is wrong, and I repudiate it wholeheartedly. But I was brought up in a place and time and culture that was very racist, and it’s hard to overcome your upbringing. I try hard and am almost always able to keep those vile attitudes in check. But sometimes, in unguarded moments, racist thoughts creep into my head and racist words slip from my mouth that are inconsistent with who I want to be, who I should be, and what I know to be good and right. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Strom’s birthday party was one of those occassions. I stumbled. I hurt people. And I’m sorry.”

Just own up to it, man. Don’t keep dodging it. You know what you meant and so do we.

The worst part is that Lott is so desperate to cling to power that he’s even willing to compromise his ideology and the conservative platform to hold on. I wish he’d just be a man about it and let the chips fall where they may.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to What I Wish Lott Had Said

  1. Barry says:

    When Barry posts his opinion on blogs, things happen. I posted on Robert’s blog that I hoped that Lott could be out before the January meeting. Clearly, this sent some White House staffers scrambling:

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/whisphome.htm

    Sorry Patrick – looks like he’s out.

  2. Patrick says:

    Well Barry, for the good of the country, I’m glad to see him go. I always hate to see our country represented by fools, idiots, and racist bigots. Now I just have to keep my fingers crossed that we won’t have someone else come in that will embarrass the country with some other kind of asinine behavior.

    Oh, and I found another link that might interest you guys. The thought process is still out there that we can somehow lower taxes, increase military spending, increase the size of the anti-terrorism intelligence departments, and save social security all at the same time. For those of you who think this miracle is somehow possible, here is a link to give you all the information you need. Just as a warning, there is sound in this presentation, so if you’re in a noise-sensitive area, take a look at this later.

  3. Robert says:

    fools, idiots, and racist bigots

    Precisely who are the “fools, idiots, and racist bigots” you mean? Are you calling Trent Lott a fool and an idiot? Do you feel the same way about Byrd and Hollings?

    The thought process is still out there that we can somehow lower taxes, increase military spending, increase the size of the anti-terrorism intelligence departments, and save social security all at the same time.

    Of course. It’s entirely possible to tax yourself into prosperity. In fact, that’s the only way! Why didn’t I think of that? Clearly the government will be a better steward of my money than I am.

    Who was it that said you can’t pull up the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer? Oh, that’s right – one of the fathers of the idiotic, foolish, bigoted Republican party – Abe Lincoln. What a moron.

    I’m no economist, but I do understand that capitalism works when lots of people have and spend lots of money. Tax cuts ultimately create wealth for everyone.

  4. Patrick says:

    Actually, for the record, I do feel the same way about Byrd and Hollings. I believe that all 3 of them should be removed from Congress, although I don’t see a legal means of doing so, and have to hope that their constituancy will vote them down. In the primaries for some and the general elections for others, but none of those men should be in public office.

    And as far as the barb, my question is how are we going to pay for the governmental expansion that Bush wants if we give all the money away before the government even gets it? If you want to cut taxes, then you have to cut programs too. If you want to expand military spending, you have to bring in more money. Simple economics. Taxing people less = bringing in less money. Voodoo economics didn’t work in the 80s and won’t work now.

  5. Barry says:

    “Voodoo economics didn’t work in the 80s and won’t work now.”

    Look at the numbers Patrick – tax revenue nearly doubled under Reagan. The problem in the 80s was that the Democrat-controlled congress went on a spending spree.

  6. Robert says:

    if we give all the money away before the government even gets it?

    That’s such a strange way to refer to tax cuts – giving money away. Tell you what, Patrick, I’m going to give you $20 – by not mugging you. Or if I do mug you, I’ll leave you with $20. Isn’t that generous of me? Whose money is it to begin with?

    Simple economics. Taxing people less = bringing in less money.

    Childishly simple economics, and absolutely wrong. History proves you wrong, as Barry referred to.

    Here’s a trivial example of how it works: Joe earns $10. Instead of taking $4, the government only takes $3. This leaves Joe with an extra $1.

    Let’s say Joe puts the extra $1 in the bank. Due to our fractional reserve banking system, the bank now can lend $10 to Bill. Bill uses that $10 to cover the startup costs for some small business which earns him $20. He repays the bank $10, plus another $1 of interest (which goes on to generate more wealth). Then he pays taxes – say $2 – on the remaining profit. In this silly example, $5 was paid in taxes instead of $4 that otherwise would have. $9 wealth was created by Joe’s extra dollar.

    Or let’s say Joe is frivolous and spends his dollar. Let’s say he buys something to eat with it (silly Joe, spending his money on food for himself instead of subsidizing welfare bums or ingrateful parasitic foreigners). When he spends that dollar, part of it goes to sales tax. Part of it goes to pay wages of the food store employees, and income tax is paid on that (not to mention the increased income tax base because someone just made a bit more money). Part of it winds up as profit for the greedy multinational corporation. When the greedy multinational corporation gets enough extra profit, it will open yet another fast food restaurant in some small town like Bells. And that will create jobs, and people will pay income tax on the money they earn at those jobs. Not to mention the increased corporate taxes due to increased profits.

    There are two ways to increase tax revenues. You can either increase the percentage of people’s money that you take, or you can increase the amount of wealth. Under capitalism, only the latter approach is sustainable.

    The USA has lower taxes than most other nations. And we are at the top of the charts when it comes to wealth and productivity. Do you think that’s simply coincidental? Wealth can be created, and we Americans are very good at it. But it takes money to make money, and we can’t make as much money if you take it all away so the government can have a shot at it first.

  7. Patrick says:

    Barry, I contest your math. Most of the money “generated” in the 1980s was created through deficit spending, both governmentally through inflation and personally through credit-card debt. When the dollar is adjusted to be constant, as is standard procedure for comparing one year to the next, the tax revinue was virtually the same under Reagan (the great hero of voodoo economics) and Carter (widely considered the greatest failure in domestic policy of the past 50 years, with the possible exception of Ford.)

    And Robert, how much of the money that America generates a product of the sheer number of people we have in comparison to other countries? I don’t have this number in front of me, but I’d be interested in seeing China’s and India’s GNP in comparison to ours. I’m willing to bet that they compare very nicely to most of the far-“richer” western European countries.

    As far as your “mugging” analogy, I actually find that to be senseless and offensive. The money that the government is spending, which you think of as your money, gives you things such as public roads, subsidized gasoline and food products, public education, police and fire protection, military protection, etc. It is being spent on the public good, and you are included in the public, as am I. If you want those protections, they must be paid for.

  8. Robert says:

    how much of the money that America generates

    A better comparison is GNP (or GDP) per capita, even though countries with very large or very small populations still skew the results.

    Here is a table comparing GNP and GNP per capita for all nations. It is 1998 data, though. http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/economic/gnp/datanot.html

    We are stomping the rest of the world in GNP, and we are in the top 5 in GNP per capita. Japan, Denmark, Sweden, and Singapore have higher GNP per capita, but even Japan only has, what, half the population we do? Countries closer to our population have much lower GNP per capita than we do.

    I’d be interested in seeing China’s and India’s GNP in comparison to ours

    Here are total GNP, then per capita.

    US:     $7,900B   $29,000
    China:    $900B      $750
    India:    $427B      $440
    

    (There’s also something called “Parity Purchasing Power” which makes China and India look a little better on the GNP per capita, but not much. They are still 10 times poorer than we are.)

    As far as your “mugging” analogy, I actually find that to be senseless and offensive.

    Well, it’s quite sensible I think and not half so offensive as the hour of Howard Stern you made me listen to every morning of our freshman year. ;-)

    It’s irrelevant how the money is used. You referred to a decrease in taxes as “giving money away”. Taking less money from a person, even if you are entitled to it and are using for their own good, can’t be construed as “giving money away”. This is like when Congress decides to only increase spending by X instead of X+Y and claims to have cut spending by Y dollars.

    The money that the government is spending, which you think of as your money

    You’re right, it’s not my money. It’s my wife’s! :-D Seriously, how can you write that? That I think of as mine? Who else has a claim to it?

    gives you things such as public roads

    I absolutely understand the case for taxation and support it. I’m not that libertarian. My point was that taking less of your money does not amount to giving you money.

Comments are closed.