USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by roni

I have some problems with the way federal taxes are used also. But I am not a tax resistor (really means a tax criminal with political reasons for their criminal behavior), so I pay them every year. It is part of being a responsible citizen.

I certainly take all the deductions and credits to which I am entitled, but people who do more than that - tax cheats (another word for tax criminals), should be placed in stocks on the public square, IMO. This is one area in which I would certainly go along with PdS's notion of using shame to try to change behavior.

You will get no argument from me on that!

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

I have some problems with the way federal taxes are used also. But I am not a tax resistor (really means a tax criminal with political reasons for their criminal behavior), so I pay them every year. It is part of being a responsible citizen.

I certainly take all the deductions and credits to which I am entitled, but people who do more than that - tax cheats (another word for tax criminals), should be placed in stocks on the public square, IMO. This is one area in which I would certainly go along with PdS's notion of using shame to try to change behavior.

I agree! (Is someone considering resisting? )

[PlayadelSoul]

Well, I am going to go out on a limb here, and say that I am probably the only one of us that has lived in it. 2 years in SE Washington DC and another 8 next to the Berg in Alexandria, VA. I have lived in it, worked in it and watched people grow out of it. I got sober in an AA club where the majority of people were not only unemployed, they were unemployable. So, James Carville needs to get out more. Its easy to comment on the inner cities when you have never lived in one. Until you have, its all theory.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I agree! (Is someone considering resisting? )

No, I just moved out of the country when Clinton started taking too much of my money.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Well, I am going to go out on a limb here, and say that I am probably the only one of us that has lived in it. 2 years in SE Washington DC and another 8 next to the Berg in Alexandria, VA. I have lived in it, worked in it and watched people grow out of it. I got sober in an AA club where the majority of people were not only unemployed, they were unemployable. So, James Carville needs to get out more. Its easy to comment on the inner cities when you have never lived in one. Until you have, its all theory.

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to convince us of here with this post?

I appreciate and admire your experience..and most certainly the challenges you have successfully overcome...you opinion IS valuable...as is roni's and ryberg's and mine......but certainly you realize that many others who HAVE "lived in it", and have overcome their challenges, and those who have yet to overcome their challenges, may disagree with you? .....and just as you are informing us from your experience and perspective, there are many people informing others with a completely different opinion...I mean these are people who lived in the inner cities, too.....I mean you get that it is far from a monolithic point of view, right?

[ryberg]

Going over those debate-poll comparisons I linked to above, this for me was the most interesting bit in the one on the Dems' debate:

Before discussing the range of coverage in their plans, Edwards complimented Obama for addressing how he would pay for his plan; he also said people are "sick" of listening to politicians describe how they could provide universal care but not being honest about the costs. Pew polling shows there is indeed an appetite among Democrats -- as well as the public as a whole -- to pay new taxes for guaranteed coverage. More than three-quarters (76%) of Democrats and two-thirds of all Americans (67%) say they favor guaranteed health insurance even if it means raising taxes.

Interesting to see that also 50% of all Republicans agree with the latter statement, even though it's typically seen as a liberal/Democrat issue.

Same goes for the following on the immigration issue, from the link re the Republicans' debate: 50% of all Republicans favor an amnesty/citizenship path for undocumented workers:

You'd think from the things you read that not nearly half of all Republicans would think that way on either of those topics. Perhaps conservative talking heads are overshooting their target audience?

There was also this point, picking up on our comments earlier about Giuliani, that I found interesting (with a very interesting finish):

Brownback was clearly talking about Giuliani when he said, "I don't think we can nominate somebody that's not pro-life in this party because it is at our core." Some 54% of Republicans say they would like to make it more difficult for a woman to get an abortion; the public at large is less supportive of this view, with just 35% saying they favor making abortion more difficult. Giuliani's views on abortion are not widely known among the GOP electorate; just 43% of Republicans in the latest Pew survey, taken earlier this month, were able to identify him as the GOP's pro-choice candidate.

For what any of this may be worth...

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I appreciate and admire your experience..and most certainly the challenges you have successfully overcome...but certainly you realize that many others who HAVE "lived in it", and have overcome their challenges, and those who have yet to overcome their challenges, may disagree with you? .....and just as you are informing us from your perspective, there are many people informing others with a completely different opinion...I mean these are people who lived in the inner cities, too.....I mean you get that it is far from a monolithic point of view, right?

I lived there by choice so, of course, my opinion is not based on circumstances. I understand circumstances. There are plenty of people in the inner city who want better. They are blocked by a small percentage of residents who like it just the way it is and by well meaning social planners who haven't a clue. Inner cities should not be treated as laboratories and the residents as experimental lab rats. We know some things work. Businesses, jobs, strict law enforcement and a path to the middle class. We know some things don't work. Welfare based on absent fathers, a relaxed outlook on drug and alcohol abuse, and pregnancy prevention based on handing out condoms.

To paraphrase Lincoln, conservatism is the applying the old and tried over the new and untried. Meaning, if it works, why change it? The inner cities are modern day plantations. The Master, in this case, is the government.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

I lived there by choice so, of course, my opinion is not based on circumstances. I understand circumstances. There are plenty of people in the inner city who want better. They are blocked by a small percentage of residents who like it just the way it is and by well meaning social planners who haven't a clue. Inner cities should not be treated as laboratories and the residents as experimental lab rats. We know some things work. Businesses, jobs, strict law enforcement and a path to the middle class. We know some things don't work. Welfare based on absent fathers, a relaxed outlook on drug and alcohol abuse, and pregnancy prevention based on handing out condoms.

To paraphrase Lincoln, conservatism is the applying the old and tried over the new and untried. Meaning, if it works, why change it? The inner cities are modern day plantations. The Master, in this case, is the government.

The last administration in which inner city crime rates declined, the number of people on welfare declined, the number of cops of the street increased, enforcement activities against dead beat Dads increased, and the number of jobs increased at the highest rate of the past 50 years was the Clinton Administration. At the same time the deficit was turned into a surplus etc....

As Casey Stengal used to say: You could look it up.

Sounds like you should be a strong Clinton supporter.

[PlayadelSoul]

Steve, there are many conservatives that favor legalizing illegals. The US needs the workers.

Have you ever been to IMSS, Steve? Do you know anyone who has? Most of the people I know, who are covered, choose to go to private doctors. I have been once or twice, but only for the emergency room. I don't have a problem with a system, similar to IMSS, where those that pay into it from their paychecks, receive care. Service and quality will suffer, however. Doctor salaries will have to be severely cut, making it a less attractive profession for some (kind of like teaching).

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

The last administration in which inner city crime rates declined, the number of people on welfare declined, the number of cops of the street increased, enforcement activities against dead beat Dads increased, and the number of jobs increased at the highest rate of the past 50 years was the Clinton Administration. At the same time the deficit was turned into a surplus etc....

As Casey Stengal used to say: You could look it up.

Sounds like you should be a strong Clinton supporter.

Republican congress? Newt, is that you?

Clinton also didn't have his economy stopped dead by planes flying into skyscrapers, suffer through a recession or watch a large part of the business community go bankrupt (dot coms). Of course, all of those things had their root in his administration. They just hadn't hit yet.

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

Republican congress? Newt, is that you?

Clinton also didn't have his economy stopped dead by planes flying into skyscrapers, suffer through a recession or watch a large part of the business community go bankrupt (dot coms). Of course, all of those things had their root in his administration. They just hadn't hit yet.

Clinton did it. It was all in his platform. You could look that up also.

It was the stuff of conservative dreams for years - less crime, more jobs, smaller government, fiscal discipline, budget surpluses, family responsibility.

Eisenhower didn't do it
Nixon didn't do it
Reagan didn't do it
Bush didn't do it

Clinton did it.

Those are facts.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

Clinton did it. It was all in his platform. You could look that up also.

It was the stuff of conservative dreams for years - less crime, more jobs, smaller government, fiscal discipline, budget surpluses, family responsibility.

Eisenhower didn't do it
Nixon didn't do it
Reagan didn't do it
Bush didn't do it

Clinton did it.

Those are facts.

A copy of the Contract with America.
Republican Contract with America

[roni]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

A copy of the Contract with America.
Republican Contract with America

The fact that Clinton achieved the conservative agenda far better than any conservative ever has continues to drive conservatives nuts.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

I lived there by choice so, of course, my opinion is not based on circumstances. I understand circumstances. There are plenty of people in the inner city who want better. They are blocked by a small percentage of residents who like it just the way it is and by well meaning social planners who haven't a clue. Inner cities should not be treated as laboratories and the residents as experimental lab rats. We know some things work. Businesses, jobs, strict law enforcement and a path to the middle class. We know some things don't work. Welfare based on absent fathers, a relaxed outlook on drug and alcohol abuse, and pregnancy prevention based on handing out condoms.


To paraphrase Lincoln, conservatism is the applying the old and tried over the new and untried. Meaning, if it works, why change it? The inner cities are modern day plantations. The Master, in this case, is the government.

Ahhh..were it so simple (simplistic?) and so clear to implement that which we know(?) to be true....from your point of view...what has prevented us from being more successful in the inner cities? I mean if those things are clearly the anwers that I have bolded from your post above....why have we not simply employed the positive factors and attacked the negative factors more successfully?

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by roni

The fact that Clinton achieved the conservative agenda far better than any conservative ever has continues to drive conservatives nuts.

Its right there, on paper. Presidents don't pass laws. Presidents don't spend money. Newt came up with it, Newt promised it, and Newt delivered a lot of it.