If it relates to the governments expenditures then it is a fiscal argument. If the policy is based on such a fiscal argument then it is a fiscal policy.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “n!gger, n!gger, n!gger.” By 1968 you can’t say “n!gger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “n!gger, n!gger.”
This is “states rights” levels of pedantic, incorrect stubbornness.
What they wrote down into law was fiscal, but just saying “fiscal policy” completely ignores the whole context to an absurd abstract degree, and this is intentional.
The discussion originally was about how the fiscal policies in European countries are good even though they have racist migration laws, I wanted to show that this is a fiscal policy too, as in they absolutely have racist fiscal policy.
It is though. Guess what the number one Argument made against migrants is.
The number one argument made against migrants is whatever that person thinks sounds the least like “I’m just xenophobic”
Right but the politicians argument is always “our social system cant afford it”. A fiscal argument.
That doesn’t make it a fiscal policy
If it relates to the governments expenditures then it is a fiscal argument. If the policy is based on such a fiscal argument then it is a fiscal policy.
And if I spray paint some stripes onto my dog, a tiger I did not make. they can claim its about fiscal policy all they want, it rarely is
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
Right so you agree that the fiscal policies and anti-migration laws targeting specific races are inextricably linked?
This is “states rights” levels of pedantic, incorrect stubbornness.
What they wrote down into law was fiscal, but just saying “fiscal policy” completely ignores the whole context to an absurd abstract degree, and this is intentional.
The discussion originally was about how the fiscal policies in European countries are good even though they have racist migration laws, I wanted to show that this is a fiscal policy too, as in they absolutely have racist fiscal policy.
I believe we are on the same side here.
Seems to be that they’re not integrating here and creating a parallel society and increase in crime.