People tired of having to pay handouts, now trying to do something about it.

[Devastatin Dave]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070123/.../atlanta_split
Is this racism or common sense? I say its common sense. Far too long the parasites and poverty pimps have sucked off the nipple of the socialistic ideals of "progressive" thought. Time to make something of yourself and not waiting for the "Man" to give you your handout.

[Lemur]

Is this racism or common sense? I say its common sense.

I'd say that I would have to know a lot more about the situation to comment intelligently. As would you, most likely. (Forgive me if you're already intimate with Atlanta politics.)

Counties and cities re-arranging their borders can happen for a whole lot of reasons. At least here in the U.S. we don't have to listen to whole provinces moaning about secession, as the poor Canucks do with Quebec. We put that notion down hard in the 1860s.

[Devastatin Dave]

Counties and cities re-arranging their borders can happen for a whole lot of reasons. At least here in the U.S. we don't have to listen to whole provinces moaning about secession, as the poor Canucks do with Quebec. We put that notion down hard in the 1860s.

Good point. People think the US today is a very "Divided Country", man if they could have seen those wonderful days of the Civil War where over 630,000 Americans died, they would see how much the US has progressed (and not in the limp-wristed liberal "progressive" meaning )

[Ser Clegane]

Opponents say the measure is racially motivated and will pit white against black, rich against poor.

I'd say of thse two it's more likely to be the latter. People just would like to have their tax money spent for their own direct benefit than seeing it spent on others (I have a hard time believing that the main rationale is that they do not want blacks to receive the money).

Nothing unusual - you see this reasoning on pretty much any level:
In the EU some people in richer country would rather like to leave the EU because they pay money the poorer EU members.
In Germany, some of the richer states are unhappy because they have to pay for the poorer states.
Within a state some areas might be unhappy because they have to support the structurally weaker areas
... and so on...

To a certain level this thinking is natural and reasonable, OTOH the concept of the "strong" supporting the "weak" is certainly a main pillar of modern societies - the question, as always, is of course to which extent society can reasonably expect of the former to do so...

[Vladimir]

I'd say of thse two it's more likely to be the latter. People just would like to have their tax money spent for their own direct benefit than seeing it spent on others (I have a hard time believing that the main rationale is that they do not want blacks to receive the money).
...

In the US, leftist redistributive politicians say that minorities (read blacks, as those fools don't realize we have other than black and Hispanic minorities) = poor. If you listen to left leaning editors, politicians, etc they always claim that women and minorities will be hardest hit. That's one of the ways that the Democratic Party has maintained its control over the black vote after they lost them as slaves, thru perceived class inequalities.

[Goofball]

I wasn't aware that the Democratic Party ever owned any slaves.

[Scurvy]

I'd say of thse two it's more likely to be the latter. People just would like to have their tax money spent for their own direct benefit than seeing it spent on others (I have a hard time believing that the main rationale is that they do not want blacks to receive the money).

exactly...

. That's one of the ways that the Democratic Party has maintained its control over the black vote after they lost them as slaves,

??? ...thats a bit of a wild accusation... the Democrats had slaves?

[Ser Clegane]

In the US, leftist redistributive politicians say that minorities (read blacks, as those fools don't realize we have other than black and Hispanic minorities) = poor. If you listen to left leaning editors, politicians, etc they always claim that women and minorities will be hardest hit. That's one of the ways that the Democratic Party has maintained its control over the black vote after they lost them as slaves, thru perceived class inequalities.

The simplified "ethnic minority (or blacks/Hispanics) = poor" statement seems to be statistically correct, as would the assumption that black people are likely to be overproportionally hit by the "secession".
However, that does not make the secession "racially motivated" IMO as the motivation is unlikely to be "we want to show the blacks" but rather "we want to keep our money" (and the latter statement is not intended to be evaluative from my side - as it is of course to a certain extent justified and only a rare minority of highly philanthropic nature does not share this sentiment at least to a ceratin extent)

[Vladimir]

I wasn't aware that the Democratic Party ever owned any slaves.

Replace party with politicians. Not like it matters much as the party has changed so much over say, the last 150 year, but it's fun to say.

[Goofball]

Replace party with politicians. Not like it matters much as the party has changed so much over say, the last 150 year, but it's fun to say.

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

[Kanamori]

I'm sure that it was being limp-wristed that got their policies more of an audience than themselves. Though, if any response is made to anything inflammatory you've posted, you've already gotten what you wanted.

Congratulations, you've uncovered offensiveness!

[yesdachi]

Seems reasonable enough for people who pay local taxes to want their local money to go to their local desires. With the wealthy being the minority (in terms of population or voters) it makes for a difficult situation because they cannot stop the majority from taxing them or from doing whatever they want with their tax dollars. Uncommon side of democracy where the people have the power.

If the county was reinstated it would really force the state to pay attention to the crappy rundown areas left behind. Maybe the city/state would have to do the things they were meant to do and not cover the troubles with other people’s money.

[Spino]

Ye gods and little fishes, secession in the South! Rally round the flag my secular humanist Yankee brothers and sisters! Unleash Sherman's clone for we march on Atlanta tomorrow!

This is so ridiculous. I just love how the story is being spun in a certain way by our beloved media... as in spun with a racist slant. So an affluent 'white' community is looking to restructure itself so that it is divorced from non-affluent (in this case 'black') community. Is race the primary issue? Possibly but we cannot say for sure. Race is certainly the most obvious factor in this equation. However the district restructuring might be due to the reasons that Dave mentioned where a particular community is completely fed up watching its tax dollars get wasted on ineffectual social programs and poorly run government institutions (i.e. crap public schools) that possess a seemingly voracious appetite for dead presidents.

This kind of regional restructuring is neither new or limited to a by-product of the desires of afluent whites. A few years ago I remember a few news stories floating around about black legislators in the south (was it Texas?) looking to restructure their districts so as to divorce them from the areas containing middle to upper class white communities. I believe the primary motivation was for the purpose of voting, so that these predominantly black communities could eliminate the chances of, shock and horror, a conservative being elected and raining on their big government handout parade (rather short sighted of them since modern conservatives love big government too... hurray for bi-partisan group hugs! ). Naturally our beloved liberal media played down the race issue and the fact that proposal was being pushed by black legislators and spun it as being a hindrance to diversity and integration and how it might adversely affect the black communities who proposed the restructuring in the first place. To my recollection I do not recall a single whiff of the words 'racist' or 'secession'.

The USA is a 'divided' nation by choice, not by decree of some fascist shadow government in bed with giant corporations who collectively pull the strings like some evil puppeteer playing out his nefarious schemes. People naturally prefer to live amongst their own kind, whether this be according to race, creed, socio-economic standing or any other classification you can think of. It's the nature of the beast. My hometown of NYC is a bastion of liberalism and yet one can easily discern the ethnic or socio-economic persuasion of any given neighborhood by simply taking a long walk throughout any of the boroughs.

[Devastatin Dave]

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

Learn history. The Republican party (Abraham Lincoln) were mainly an abolistionist party. In fact most Southerners and slave owners were Democrats. Today the democrats are finding it hard to break this tradition considering their constant use of keeping blacks under their thumb by creatively keeping them on government assistance.

[Scurvy]

the story is being spun in a certain way by our beloved media... as in spun with a racist slant. So an afluent 'white' community is looking to restructure itself so that it is divorced from non-afluent (in this case 'black') community. Is race the primary issue?

agreed, its a divisison between rich and poor, not necessarily race

Learn history. The Republican party (Abraham Lincoln) were mainly an abolistionist party. In fact most Southerners and slave owners were Democrats.

this i can believe

Today the democrats are finding it hard to break this tradition considering their constant use of keeping blacks under their thumb by creatively keeping them on government assistance.

but this i can't

[drone]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_County%2C_Georgia
If you look at the county map, you can see that the geographical oddity that is modern Fulton County. The northern section was tacked on in 1932. Having lived in DeKalb County (the one to the east of Fulton, oddly shaped like the state of GA) for 10 years, I can assure you that the people living in the northern section probably want nothing to do with Fulton's inner city problems. Geographically, it makes sense. Financially, it would probably cripple the city of Atlanta.

[rory_20_uk]

Learn history. The Republican party (Abraham Lincoln) were mainly an abolitionist party. In fact most Southerners and slave owners were Democrats. Today the democrats are finding it hard to break this tradition considering their constant use of keeping blacks under their thumb by creatively keeping them on government assistance.

What parties were is of no current relevance. It is what they are that matters.

In UK politics to equate the Lib Dems with the Whigs isn't helpful, nor is quoting Tory policies from 100 years ago.

[Fisherking]

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

Pure BS! Anyone with the slightest familiarity with American history would know that the Democratic party was the party of the slave owners.

The Republican party was the party who freed the slaves. Hum. A hard example might be say Abraham Lincoln.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and sponsored by ooops, the Republican Party.

For those who might be so supremely ignorant as to think the Democrats have stood for civil rights prior to the 1960s I suggest any of a myriad of American history books.

The Johnson administration was highly racist but saw the opportunity to snatch the black vote from the Republican party with their war on poverty. You can read cynical pronouncements by Lyndon B. Johnson if you care to do any historical research.

The idea that either political party is clean of racism is in itself a fallacy. The idea that one party is good and the other is therefore evil is paramountly stupid.

This is a recent flip and could change tomorrow...........

Please take none of this personally. It's just a clarification of history.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not certain non-Americans can understand the gravity of this particular situation. So much of social services happen at the county and municipal level in this country, this could truly set the majority of Atlanta back to the stone age.

Although it's referred to as 'White Flight', this is, as others have correctly pointed out, a socio-econmic issue, and it turns up across the US.

Here's the problem, in a nutshell. School districts raise money at the local level (usually through property taxes). Funding for school districts is completely self contained. So, if you have one town made of millionares, and other of tenemants, you get vastly differently funded schools.

In theory, this is fair. Local control, and all that. But here's the rub... successful people in the poorer school districts save their money to move out. This becomes a downward spiral. What few economic successes the poor school districts are able to produce move out, taking their cash with them.

People have tried dealing with this across the country with a wide assortment of initiatives, including state-wide educational budgets; redistricting; bussing; subsidies for under-performing schools... all have met with limited success.

I don't know what the right answer is. I do know telling poor children in the inner city that you're sorry, but their parents are lazy so they can't get a decent education isn't it. Nor is forcing kids to ride busses 3 hours a day in the name of 'diversity'. Maybe if we could actually fire poorly performing teachers and break the NEA's stranglehold on public education.... nah forget it, that's crazy talk. Everyone knows its unfair to expect teachers to produce results...

[Goofball]

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

Learn history. The Republican party (Abraham Lincoln) were mainly an abolistionist party. In fact most Southerners and slave owners were Democrats. Today the democrats are finding it hard to break this tradition considering their constant use of keeping blacks under their thumb by creatively keeping them on government assistance.

Learn geography and English. Here is the Dem/Rep breakdown by state from the 2004 election:



Here is the definition of the word "progeny:"

prog·e·ny
Pronunciation[proj-uh-nee]
–noun, plural -ny or, for plants or animals, -nies. 1.a descendant or offspring, as a child, plant, or animal. 2.such descendants or offspring collectively. 3.something that originates or results from something else; outcome; issue.

Note that the south is now pretty much Republican, and the North is Democrat.

So unless you are suggesting that some wholesale migratory swap took place after the civil war, in which all the former slave owners moved north, and all the non slave owners moved south, my statement is correct. The descendents of the southern slave owners are now for the most part Rupublican voters, while the descendents of the northern abolitionists are now Democrat voters.

My mistake though, I shouldn't have put forth a comment that involved both the use of a dictionary and a map to understand.

Pure BS! Anyone with the slightest familiarity with American history would know that the Democratic party was the party of the slave owners.

Having read the above, do you now understand what I was saying?

The Republican party was the party who freed the slaves. Hum. A hard example might be say Abraham Lincoln.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and sponsored by ooops, the Republican Party.

For those who might be so supremely ignorant as to think the Democrats have stood for civil rights prior to the 1960s I suggest any of a myriad of American history books.

The Johnson administration was highly racist but saw the opportunity to snatch the black vote from the Republican party with their war on poverty. You can read cynical pronouncements by Lyndon B. Johnson if you care to do any historical research.

And I don't disagree with any of that. But the fact remains that a complete shift has happened in both parties. They both stand for very different things now than what they did 40 years ago, not to even mention 140 years ago. For the current Republican Party to try to get credit for their role and villify the Democratic Party for their role in the civil rights movement is laughable, given that the demographic that previously was vehemently anti-civil rights now comprises the base of Republican power.

And BTW, if you still believe that my knowledge of American history is lacking, you can only blame the American education system.

I went to high school in Connecticut.

The idea that either political party is clean of racism is in itself a fallacy. The idea that one party is good and the other is therefore evil is paramountly stupid.

This is a recent flip and could change tomorrow...........

Agreed, and agreed.

[BigTex]

This kind of regional restructuring is neither new or limited to a by-product of the desires of afluent whites. A few years ago I remember a few news stories floating around about black legislators in the south (was it Texas?) looking to restructure their districts so as to divorce them from the areas containing middle to upper class white communities

I believe that is one of the democratic spins they used to try and stop the redistricting. After the Republicans put a redistricting map up for vote the democrats through a holy fit. The redistricting was going to cut up the districts so the democrats wouldnt have as many seats. Now after crying fowl and that falling on deaf ears they decided to drop the idea of resolving this democraticaly and fled the state. After they were brought back from New Mexico and the Governor pardoned them one of the ways they tryed to twist this was to call it racist. They claimed the redistricting was an attempt to split up the white from the black. Funny though when the Democrats were in power they did the exact same thing. Common tactic thats used at the state level by both parties, probably why it fell on deaf ears. Though I don't think the vast majority of those flee the state to prevent a vote.

As for the actual topic, thats rediculous to call it racist. Granted even though it isnt racist doesnt make it anymore disgusting. The rich already live in reasonably peaceful neighborhoods, of course most of their tax dollar's arent going to be speant there. Their going to be speant were the pot holes are, were the pimps are shooting their girls, where the drug dealers are, where the meth dealers threaten to blow up the neighborhood. The wonderful thing about democracy is that the majority makes the decisions, not the minority. I doubt they want succession, considering the city I'd hope they'd have a lasting impression of what happened last time.

[Don Corleone]

This is really two questions: 1) Should rich people have to pay for schools in poor neighborhoods? and 2) In the interest of diversity, should we force the children of rich people to attend schools in poor neighborhoods?

I say yes to the first and no to the second. Guess that means that I'm heartless, right-wing pond scum.

[Marshal Murat]

Providing that doesn't mean that the whole 140 years of previous history is to be disregarded. In Florida/Alabama/Mississippi/Georgia, you will find an interesting trend.
For example
Governors of Florida

Governors of Georgia

Governors of Alabama

Governors of Mississippi


Now if you'll kindly take notice that from the 1820's-1990's many of the states had a predominance of, surprise! Democratic Governors!

Well now, is that a surprise? Why No!
Can you explain that to me?
Sure. The white farmers and general white population, before and AFTER the American Civil War has voted on a Democratic swing. The African-American freed slaves began voting on a Republican track, but since there were poll taxes, reading tests, and other requirements, the illiterate and poor freed slaves couldn't vote.
Now, when JFK began to emphasize Civil Rights, African-Americans were attracted to the Democratic side.

The RECENT trend to Republican voting is due to 2 points.
1)Bush is from the South.
2)Republicans represent the conservative end of the spectrum, and deals with values that everyone from Virginia to Texas can agree with.

Now with Democrats going on about abortion and crazy things that people here don't enjoy, we go to the other side to prevent such an event from happening.
So I am offended that you are saying that the recent Republican voting trend means that every single one of those Republicans owned slaves before they were emancipated, especially since Mexican immigration, immigrants from 1890's onward never owned slaves.

P.S. Jeffersonian Republican are Democrats.

[Watchman]

This is really two questions: 1) Should rich people have to pay for schools in poor neighborhoods? and 2) In the interest of diversity, should we force the children of rich people to attend schools in poor neighborhoods?

I say yes to the first and no to the second. Guess that means that I'm heartless, right-wing pond scum.

What, I thought merely supporting 1) made you a moustachioed, pipe-smoking pinko-Boslhevik...? Who hates freedom, of course.

[Don Corleone]

What, I thought merely supporting 1) made you a moustachioed, pipe-smoking pinko-Boslhevik...? Who hates freedom, of course.

Too true. To those to the right of me, I'm sure that's how they view my stance on this issue. Having people from both sides disparage me lets me know that my views must be at least somewhat reasonable.

[BigTex]

1)Bush is from the South.

The overwelming majority of presidents have been from the south. Even Bill Clinton was a southerner. That has really no relavance to relation to slave owners. Slave owners are 3-4 generations removed from most people living today, not to mention the entire culture has changed.

Though the democrats until recently have been stuanch supporters of the KKK. Alot of the members that are in the democratic party today lived through those times when they supported them.

I don't see how the debate about democratic racism has any relavence on the case of the rich trying to emancipate themselves from the poor. The citiy of Atlanta will hopefully prevent anything like this from happening though. In all cities there are a rich minority and there tax dollars will always be speant were the majority live. It's democracy get used to it.

[Don Corleone]

People need to remember that there's really 2 axes in American politics: populism verus entrepreneuriaism and secularism verus moralism. Axis one is more of a economic issue, axis 2, social behavior. The south tends to be very moralist AND populist. The Republican party is entreprenerial (and recently, moralist). The Democratic party is populist (and recently, secularist). Hence the flip.

[Hosakawa Tito]

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

When the Republican party (the party of Abe Lincoln) was first formed, back in the 1850's (from the Whigs & Know Nothing parties), they were the anti-slavery party. The Democrats, championed by Stephen Douglas, were the party of "states rights" in regards to slavery. The Southern states were the bastion of Democrats till just after the civil rights movement, then they flip flopped. Confusing, no?

[Goofball]

And completely ignores the fact that the progeny of slave owners are for the most part Republicans, while the progeny of non-slave owners are for the most part Democrat.

When the Republican party (the party of Abe Lincoln) was first formed, back in the 1850's (from the Whigs & Know Nothing parties), they were the anti-slavery party. The Democrats, championed by Stephen Douglas, were the party of "states rights" in regards to slavery. The Southern states were the bastion of Democrats till just after the civil rights movement, then they flip flopped. Confusing, no?

Not at all. At least not to me.

The southerners were previously Democrats, but their descendents are now Republicans, and vice versa for the northerners and their descendents. It was the irony of this situation that I was pointing out in my original post.

Are we going to keep going round and round this crazy merry-go-round?

[Ice]

People need to remember that there's really 2 axes in American politics: populism verus entrepreneuriaism and secularism verus moralism. Axis one is more of a economic issue, axis 2, social behavior. The south tends to be very moralist AND populist. The Republican party is entreprenerial (and recently, moralist). The Democratic party is populist (and recently, secularist). Hence the flip.

That's pretty funny actually. It usually makes people choice what's more important to them, values or economic issues.

Economic Issues always trump with me.