If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   John Edwards puts the final nail in his own coffin on day 1, chooses to campaign on the Robin Hood platform   (online.wsj.com) divider line 1080
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

20162 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2006 at 12:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1080 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-12-28 01:47:08 PM
IXI Jim IXI

GodsTumor: She looks too much like James Brown!

But these days, she's much more mobile.


Yeah, I wonder if she shakes her money maker for her husban...
I mean W?
 
2006-12-28 01:47:09 PM
smeegle: rant over-carry on

Yeah, the headline is a total troll. Has NOTHING to do with stealing from the rich.

Folks obviously just want their daily partisan bash.
 
2006-12-28 01:47:15 PM
>> Equal access to higher education is a good start.

Man you don't know squat.

You got tons of highly educated software workers that are hard core unemployed.

And now the same thing is happening to engineers and lawyers (Dupont just outsourced it's legal dept to India)
 
2006-12-28 01:47:18 PM
2006-12-28 01:45:26 PM smeegle

Well said.
 
2006-12-28 01:47:29 PM
AeAe: Did someone say this yet?

Guliani/McCain '08



Yes, but the last guy who suggested McCain getting anywhere near the oval office except on the tour, we tarred & feathered.
 
2006-12-28 01:47:39 PM
AeAe: Guliani/McCain '08

I liked that option about 5 months ago, but McCain has shown himself to be a total tool.
 
2006-12-28 01:48:10 PM
Sloth_DC

Higher education is further out of reach for kids from poor homes.
You don't have to be a genius to go to college either.
Everyone who wants it should get it or atleast be given the opportunitty to try.
 
2006-12-28 01:48:14 PM
whidbey: Folks obviously just want their daily partisan bash.

Don't look at me. Personally, I'm just waiting for the next beastiality thread. Because I'm all about loving the animals.
 
2006-12-28 01:48:23 PM
amaranthe: Universal healthcare would lead immediately to even more nanny-state BS and more government meddling and over-regulation of our activities (smoking, drinking, having sex, eating fried foods or foods with trans-fats, etc.) because the government would want to do everything in its power to ensure that even WITH universal healthcare, it didn't have to PAY more than it absolutely had to.

untrustworthy: This is my concern as well, but nobody seems to get that.

I guess that's why the Dutch have outlawed prostitution, drugs, and liquor.
 
2006-12-28 01:48:50 PM
wingnut396:

I'd generally agree with you about a lot of this stuff, with a few comments interspersed.

1. Focusing on college bound cirrculum.

My grandparents worked their way up through blue collar jobs without a high school education, so I have nothing but respect for people who take that path. A job is a job and it's not my job to judge other people for what they do. But I don't see what's wrong with offering people opportunities. I'm a bit fearful of a tracking system where people are forced into a certain inflexible skill set. Ideally, kids should come away from school knowing a set of facts but also having the ability to think critically and to adjust to their surroundings. Reality a lot of times doesn't reach this ideal, however.

2. Families that don't care.

That's always going to be a problem, but it's a much greater problem when schools are out of sight and out of mind. Ultimately, however, crumbling schools are a symptom and not the actual problem.

3. Government oversight. While some oversight is needed, too much value is placed on performance and standarized tests.

Yes.

4. Bussing.

That's an opportunity cost to deseg, and frankly vouchers has the same if not greater opportunity costs. A localized, districted school system has a certain level of efficiency in that the kids live within a geographical proximity of the school so you don't need to drive out into bumblefark to pick them up. That's such a hot button issue that you could spend days arguing about it.
 
2006-12-28 01:49:14 PM
smeegle: I believe it was your Christ himself that said "He who takes care of the least of us, takes care of me.

For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me.
 
2006-12-28 01:49:22 PM
smeegle: You don't have to be a genius to go to college either.
Everyone who wants it should get it or atleast be given the opportunitty to try.


It sounds to me like a lot of the mechanisms for success are there, it's a matter of building hope in communities and among disinfranchised people who are sick of struggling.

That goes across the board.
 
2006-12-28 01:49:54 PM
"amaranthe: Universal healthcare would lead immediately to even more nanny-state BS and more government meddling and over-regulation of our activities "

If you think our Insurance Industry isn't pushing for that stuff, (i.e. we don't pay for your illness because YOU MADE YOURSELF sick) you're a fool.
 
2006-12-28 01:50:08 PM
Well, I for one cannot see why we need to eliminate poverty and hunger in this country, any time I can get stuck behind a 350-Lb. water buffalo, pushing a shopping cart down the aisle (blocking traffic in both directions, natch) and filling it up with the best steaks and chops, and paying for it with food stamps.

After that, go to coffee some time and have a tramp bum on you for the price of a burger, so he doesn't have to dip into his beer money.

America is the only nation in the world where poor people are fat; America is the only nation in the world where beggars beg for meat-------and they also want it cooked and served to them.

I'm not too sure if I should be bragging or birching about that; it may suck as is, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
 
2006-12-28 01:50:08 PM
IXI Jim IXI: Because I'm all about loving the animals.

You can be Loving the Alien a few threads down...:)
 
2006-12-28 01:50:09 PM
knobmaker: I guess that's why the Dutch have outlawed prostitution, drugs, and liquor.

And this is what I'm talking about when I say nobody seems to get this. I'm not talking about other countries. I'm talking about the US. A lot of the ignorant masses seem to fall prey to the fear mongering of the government and the press and it has resulted in somewhat of a nanny-state mentality. Giving the government more power isn't going to make this problem less.
 
2006-12-28 01:50:11 PM
amaranthe: Universal healthcare would lead immediately to even more nanny-state BS and more government meddling and over-regulation of our activities (smoking, drinking, having sex, eating fried foods or foods with trans-fats, etc.) because the government would want to do everything in its power to ensure that even WITH universal healthcare, it didn't have to PAY more than it absolutely had to.

In Germany where they have universal health care they smoke like it is the 1950s. It is fantastic.
 
2006-12-28 01:50:31 PM
DaShredda

just farking around on the site--nothing serious. you can make some pretty maps.

ooooh yeah! the raw average amount of charitable deductions is much more striking!
"http://www.dataplace.org/map/index.html?cid=27863&centerX=-10667400.4321238&c enterY=4009247.42007624&zoomlevel=13
wishes I could linky poppy
 
2006-12-28 01:50:40 PM
smeegle:

Too many binary thinkers not enough people who look at the broader aspect of an issue.
Trimming the gap between the wealthy and impoverished isn't about a Robin Hood act, it's about opening doors of opportunitty to more people.


but what is the responsibility of government, providing for social mobility or maximizing output by fostering efficiencies in the structure of society?

if we want to give the greatest amount of wealth to the people (and offer a higher total quality of life) we should encourage the most efficient producers to produce (allow the successful businessmen to retain greater profits and encourage them to reinvest). if we want to foster social mobility, we should take from the most efficient producers and give that wealth to the lower social classes.
 
2006-12-28 01:50:44 PM
what stupidity. Poverty can never be eliminated without some moronic welath redistribution scheme that just makes everyone equally poor. the goalposts will just move, making a new class of 'the poor'. We cant stop people who overspend, live beyond their means, then lose their jobs through their own asshattery. Ensure equality of opportunity (mainly through reduced theft of personal resources by taxation), and let people make their own way. some get lucky, some are unlucky, others rise or fall on their merits. Thats as good as it will ever get.

I'm sick of the whining about 'poor Katrina victims'. wah, they had a disaster. Happens all the time, other people just dont make a carerr out of their victimization.
Poverty can be accidental, or the product of misfortune. But its undeniably populated by the stupid, the lazy, the shiftless, the scammers, the scum, who just wont work when they can leech off others. any scheme to take other peopes money and give it to 'the poor' is going to feed this element, who wil be first in line, and far more demanding, than thhose who have become poor through misfortune, lack of opportunity and are too proud or reluctant to take such aid.

Whenever you subsidize something, you get more of it. Undeniable. When you give out more welfare checks, you get more peopel trying to get them.

Poverty cannot, and will never, be defeated. At best, we can see to it that poverty is keps as low as we can, that charitable aid and resources to make up for basic neccessities is encouraged, and no artificial barriers to leaving poverty are allowed to continue.
 
2006-12-28 01:51:15 PM
olddinosaur: I'm not too sure if I should be bragging or birching about that;

Me neither.

Generalities like you mention tend to get misconstrued as being The Mainstream...
 
2006-12-28 01:51:20 PM
Snarfangel you can take your land value tax and go to hell.

Property tax of any kind is the most disgusting tax of all, because it means you don't actually own your property; you are merely renting it from the government, and if you don't pay, men with guns will come and evict you.
 
2006-12-28 01:51:21 PM
Uncle Karl: In Germany where they have universal health care they smoke like it is the 1950s. It is fantastic.

That's Germany. Now let's talk about the US.
 
2006-12-28 01:51:56 PM
Sloth_DC: For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me.

You forgot the sentance before that where the writer states that Jesus criticizes Judas for being disingenuous about wanting to help the poor, NOT because it's evil to help poor people. But that's okay, distort the Gospel and pretend that Jesus was a supply sider.
 
2006-12-28 01:51:59 PM
Education is not a cure-all. While it might be an INDIVIDUAL solution (as in it beats sitting around and feeling sorry for yourself) it may not solve the SOCIETAL problem (declining real wages and increasing portability of jobs.)

OTOH, a middle class existence in 1970 had a lot fewer goodies than a middle class existence in 2006.
 
2006-12-28 01:52:02 PM
I stood in line behind John Edwards at an atm during a Carolina game. Dude's got bucks.

Go Heels.
 
2006-12-28 01:52:05 PM
If you can't do anything about poverty why did the British do such a good job at cutting it.

And why did LBJ reduce it by so much with his "Great Society" programs.
 
2006-12-28 01:52:21 PM
smeegle: Higher education is further out of reach for kids from poor homes.

Unless they do well in HS and on the SAT. Actually, even if they don't, they can usually qualify for a loan.

You don't have to be a genius to go to college either.
Everyone who wants it should get it or atleast be given the opportunitty to try.


Why? I mean, if you don't do the prep work in HS, and aren't willing to take out a loan, exactly what further obligation is there to send you to college?
 
2006-12-28 01:52:44 PM
Ooo, he has such pretty hair, and he is cute, and he wants to help the poor. He has my vote.

/vapid american female voter
//ooh and he wears nice denim shirts and likes the blacks, he is dreamy.
///issues? what issues? American Idol is on, I'm too busy
 
2006-12-28 01:52:58 PM
olddinosaur

Well, I for one cannot see why we need to eliminate poverty and hunger in this country
Maybe, just to be decent?

America is the only nation in the world where poor people are fat; America is the only nation in the world where beggars beg for meat-------and they also want it cooked and served to them.
Nope, all 1st world nations are like that. If you really want to see starving people go on vacation to Ethiopia or something.
 
2006-12-28 01:53:27 PM
I've always liked McCain. He seems honest, head screwed on right, credible..

I'm thinking it's going to be Hillary/Barack vs. Guiliani/Mccain.

/I said it first AFAIK.
 
2006-12-28 01:53:38 PM
Sloth_DC: For you always have the poor with you;

Not to mention that 4BC!=2006 where there really isn't much of an excuse for poverty in an age where supposedly everyone can have what they need...
 
2006-12-28 01:53:44 PM
Egregious Philbin
So helping the poor is not an issue?
 
2006-12-28 01:54:06 PM
For the record, since Sloth_DC is being an asshat and promoting distortion of the gospel:

From John 12:3-8

3 Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus 2 and dried them with her hair; the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil.
4
Then Judas the Iscariot, one (of) his disciples, and the one who would betray him, said,
5
"Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days' wages 3 and given to the poor?"
6
He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.
7
So Jesus said, "Leave her alone. Let her keep this for the day of my burial. 4
8
You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."
 
2006-12-28 01:54:20 PM
FTFA.

Why dont we do whatever was done from 1997 to 2000 the number below poverty level and uninsured fell, and I dont remember it hurting the economy.

online.wsj.com
 
2006-12-28 01:54:21 PM
Why thank you twilson2 for jumping in there and telling me what I don't know.
You are only looking at one aspect of the issue.
Poverty is a class issue.
Classism has roots in serfdom and the caste system both of which are deep seated aspects of our society that need to be eliminated.

Yes, there will always be lazy free-loaders but poverty in and of itself is actually a sickness of the greater society that I believe is healed by education good health and enlightenment.
But hey like you said "I don't know squat", and you are right- I never met the man.
 
2006-12-28 01:54:28 PM
whidbey: You can be Loving the Alien a few threads down...:)

That's a terrible way to refer to our snowbound farker brothers and sisters ;)
 
2006-12-28 01:54:39 PM
AeAe: I'm thinking it's going to be Hillary/Barack vs. Guiliani/Mccain.

/I said it first AFAIK.


I'll hunt you down if it's Hillary/Obama...
 
2006-12-28 01:55:06 PM
You know what I like best about "these" threads?


Whenever I try to CTRL+F for "Clint" to find my posts, etc....I have to work through about 30 Clinton references.
 
2006-12-28 01:55:07 PM
olddinosaur

Well, I for one cannot see why we need to eliminate poverty and hunger in this country, any time I can get stuck behind a 350-Lb. water buffalo, pushing a shopping cart down the aisle (blocking traffic in both directions, natch) and filling it up with the best steaks and chops, and paying for it with food stamps.

After that, go to coffee some time and have a tramp bum on you for the price of a burger, so he doesn't have to dip into his beer money.

America is the only nation in the world where poor people are fat; America is the only nation in the world where beggars beg for meat-------and they also want it cooked and served to them.



Another proud graduate of the AM Radio PhD Program.
 
2006-12-28 01:55:17 PM
Chavez made a big dent in poverty too.

But the conservatives want you to believe nothing can be done about poverty.

And we know they wouldn't lie (WMDs)
 
2006-12-28 01:55:30 PM
sod213: Anyone here remember Eloise, Michigan?

Sneaking into the tunnels? Good times.
 
2006-12-28 01:55:40 PM
untrustworthy
So are you saying Germans are smarter? Or not as cheap as Americans?

What is it that makes you think Americans would ban everything?
 
2006-12-28 01:55:47 PM
Globalization will mean two things:
(1) The US will no longer be the dominant power, as China and India leverage their higher populations into greater human capital.
(2) Wages will come down in the US, as wages approach the global norm. Due to Americans' high levels of debt, this will mean less disposable income and thus a lower standard of living.

As an American, I am not certain why I should be embracing globalization wholeheartedly.
 
2006-12-28 01:55:56 PM
untrustworthy: And this is what I'm talking about when I say nobody seems to get this. I'm not talking about other countries.


So your speculations about what might happen in this country with universal healthcare are more germane to the discussion than what actually happened in other countries?
 
2006-12-28 01:56:02 PM
Lard_Baron: Why dont we do whatever was done from 1997 to 2000 the number below poverty level and uninsured fell, and I dont remember it hurting the economy.

Because Clinton's busy in Harlem, Monica's busy wherever, and they'll never get another surge like that in the drycleaning industry. ;)
 
2006-12-28 01:56:05 PM
www.wisopinion.com

The next president I believe. I think people are fed up with the way the republicans have been running the show. If Hillary gets up there, then I think republicans will have a clear win. I don't think anyone wants to see that nutjob in the White House again.
 
2006-12-28 01:56:34 PM
Rational Exuberance: WTF does that mean? I don't want people living out of dumpsters; if people are having trouble making enough money to live then the government can help them out (the EITC does this) by providing them funds. You keep using words like "fair" and "decent", but I don't understand your definition. It seems decent to me that I want the poorer people to be helped out without causing an undue burden upon those that are more successful.

There's not a way that I see to dance around this one. Inequality of wealth isn't a problem to be solved unless the poor are is such poverty that they can't afford to live. Relative differences in wealth mean nothing; the only thing that is relevant is the absolute amount. On this basis, the poor are pretty well off (although some improvements need to be made).


Creating opportunity. Whether that is achieved through the private sector sharing the wealth more evenly with employees, or whether it be by the government taxing the wealthy in order to provide for the majority of citizens. This isn't simply about the poor anymore, it's becoming a problem for the middle class to get ahead now as well.
 
2006-12-28 01:56:37 PM
LocalCynic

First, I think there is a value to local institutions. I realize that nowadays people are told to think globally not locally, but it's also important that people have some sense of civic pride.

Novel, and I respect what you're saying. I just don't think it's proven to be pragmatic. If I can't afford to live in the town I grew up in because the standard of living has increased around me, then my civic pride still isn't going to pay my property taxes - I'll have to move. I may yearn to return in a time when I can afford to, but I can't buy something I can't afford. This isn't American doctrine nowadays, I know...

Finally, it seems like this proposal is just going to snowball. Schools in metropolitan areas (suburbs and some better city schools) tend to be better funded than schools in rural areas with small populations, lower incomes, and lower property levels. Why should those kids miss out on the pie? Your proposal would saddle more costs on the city and suburban schools if rural kids (or people from far across the state) would want to attend.

That's the way economics have trended across the board, not just in education. You'll also notice that taxes are higher in major cities and their suburbs typically. I live around Boston, and while the state contributes significantly to municipal budgets, property taxes around here still run about $10-$15 per thousand assessed. In some towns around here like Newton, upwards of $8 of that is going towards the local schools. So it's largely proportionate to the standard of living. Lest any of us think that the public education system is equitable - your affordability in living standard will be directly proportional in most cases to the amount spent on your child's education, which may be different from what's going on in the town next door.

With my idea, the share of tax that is the per student cost that each town claims to pay is treated akin to tuition, as opposed to an arbitrary expense that can be budgeted based on the decisions of bureaucrats.

So you'd prefer state and federal governments to do the local government's job for them? That's not competition, that's just middle management.

No, I'd prefer that government stay out of it entirely, particularly anyone outside of the local government. States that mandate that children attend schools in the towns in which they reside should be repealed, and reciprocity agreements should be forged between cities and towns much like airlines may put you on aligned carriers for flights they operate. That ultimately drives the most control over the direction of public education to the taxpayer/voter. And the Department of Education in Washington should be dissolved entirely. If a small town in Tennessee wants to teach their kids from the bible, and the people of the town have agreed to this, then they should not be restricted from doing so in order to accommodate federally mandated and state mandated testing. I resent the fact that voters in California through the Federal Government have the ability to dictate how and what my children in Massachusetts learn.
 
2006-12-28 01:56:58 PM
Sloth_DC

Well guess if Mommy and Daddy can afford to put little Susie and Johnny into the best colleges then that's all that matters huh?

You really don't get it do you?
 
Displayed 50 of 1080 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report