Ah Edwards, I wonder how many poverty stricken people he could house in his 100+acre lot and tens of thousands of square feet housing complex, he also claims to be an environmentalist too, wonder how much energy he spends heating/cooling that monstrosity and how many tons of materials went into it.

Posted by: aaron | May 16, 2008 3:48 PM

since you are so ready to damn the rich - but only those of the rich who actually want to lift people out of poverty?

How the hell did you infer that? I was damming hypocrisy. Edwards lost my vote when he bought/built that mostrous housing complex of his and still tried to wave the green banner.

Posted by: aaron | May 16, 2008 4:54 PM

I and I is right on about conservative Republican free market, supply-side, trickle down, voodoo economic policy.
It's a smokescreen for corporate welfare.
Always has been.

Posted by: justintime | May 16, 2008 6:34 PM

I forgot to put this in. Even though Jesus stated the poor will always be with us, I think the witness of Jesus is clear - we should always help those that are in need. Volunteering in soup kitchens, giving to good will, food banks, etc. is a good way to start. I am not sure what the government can do... Whenever the government gets involved, they tend to screw it up, and BIG TIME. We all have seen how well Welfare has worked. NOT!!!

The best way to fight poverty is through 3 mediums - church, charity and education. Instead of paying people for doing nothing (as is often the case with welfare), educate them and equip them to be productive members of society, as long as they are physically and mentally capable. If not, that's a total different situation, and church and charity kicks in.

Forcing all people via increased taxes will inevitably create more problems, ill-will and class warfare. Penalizing the wealthy for being wealthy, is ludicrous. Regardless, the liberal special interests and lobbyists will get their muddy paws on the money anyway. And how would they use it? Probably to find more ways to turn food (like corn) into fuel to burn in our cars, cause God-forbid we burn petro. LOL

Posted by: Armed2Win | May 16, 2008 7:21 PM

John Edwards might be well advised to re-read the story of Jesus and the "Rich Young Ruler", you know, "sell all you have and give to the poor". I wonder if Edwards would change his tune if that would be the requirement.

Ironically, these guys (Edwards and Obama) want to have a say in taking our hard earned money without the scrutiny of what they do with theirs. So, in a sense, it is hypocrisy.

Recently, Obama was interviewed concerning this very scenario. The comment was made to Obama that raising taxes statistically and consistently reduces government revenue. Obama's reponse? "That doesn't matter - that's what is fair."

My point - you can do more for the poor by cutting taxes and encouraging church and charity, than by penalizing all Americans for political points and legacy building.

Posted by: Armed2Win | May 16, 2008 7:48 PM

Recently, Obama was interviewed concerning this very scenario. The comment was made to Obama that raising taxes statistically and consistently reduces government revenue. Obama's reponse? "That doesn't matter - that's what is fair."
My point - you can do more for the poor by cutting taxes and encouraging church and charity, than by penalizing all Americans for political points and legacy building.

Armed2Win, please provide a source for the words you're putting into Obama's mouth.
You're just regurgitating the same familiar conservative talking points to justify doing nothing about poverty.
All talk, no action.

....................
Chuck must be planning to stay home on election day.
What's the use of voting anyway?

Posted by: justintime | May 16, 2008 10:54 PM

As long as we're talking about poverty, Armed2Win, why won't McCain reveal his income tax returns?
Both Obama and Clinton have made their tax returns public.
What is McCain hiding anyway?

Posted by: justintime | May 16, 2008 11:10 PM

Armed2Win puts words in Obama's mouth,
Ross puts thoughts in Obama's mind.
I wonder where all of this is coming from.
Could it be....
...the Republican noise machine?

Have either of you visited Obama's website to find out for yourselves what his economic policies really are?

Posted by: justintime | May 16, 2008 11:57 PM

I don't know how they expect to pay for all that trillion dollar war they favor for the next five to 100 years, without taxing anyone. I mean, even if it's all borrowed, it has to be repaid, and government runs only on taxes.

I mean, thinking that you can create something out of nothing - that really is believing in voodoo.

Hey! Wait a minute! That's just what the neocons in power are doing - printing money and creating inflation to "pay" for what they've spent, without "raising taxes." Inflation is the most irresponsible and cruelest of taxes - ask Weimar.

But the answer you don't want to hear comes from those who emerge after Weimar.

Posted by: N. M. Rod | May 17, 2008 1:55 AM

I don't think Edwards ever had Aaron's vote in the first place.
Aaron sounds like a McCain supporter to me.

*gasp* A judgmental Christian, why I never...

Where did you get that Armchair Psychology degree btw?

Posted by: aaron | May 17, 2008 6:54 AM

Justintime,

here is a link to video clip of Obama making that comment. http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=359f6171-0d75-448a-8c08-3d7ebb942743

You can see that Obama wants to raise the tax because he thinks certain people make too much money and there needs to be fairness. I am sorry but that is socialism. When the government has the power to decide what our incomes should be, liberty has died and tyranny has come.

"A man who chooses between drinking a glass of milk and a glass of a solution of potassium cyanide does not choose between two beverages; he chooses between life and death. A society that chooses between capitalism and socialism does not choose between two social systems; it chooses between social cooperation and the disintegration of society. Socialism is not an alternative to capitalism; it is an alternative to any system under which men can live as human beings." – Ludwig Von Mises

Posted by: JR | May 17, 2008 10:40 AM

"He [God] owns it all anyways - He just allows some to have more than others, hoping that those with more will use their talents for Him by helping those with less."

Nice of the old boy to place such confidence in them.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | May 17, 2008 11:20 AM

I would like to point some the holier than thou liberals on this particular post to the following links. I think you might find some of this interesting. Goodness too, one of the links is on beliefnet!

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

Do you want to know the consensus of the two articles? Conservatives (across the monetary spectrum - from poor to extremely wealthy) give more to charity and the poor than do liberals, especially wealthy liberals. Here are a few quotes for your enjoyment:

From Beliefnet:

"When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

"Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money."

From the ABC article:

"It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity."

Perhaps ya'll should hate us conservative leaning folk a little less and work with us. We are happy to do the same.

God bless.

Posted by: Armed2Win | May 17, 2008 11:54 AM

Both of A2W's links reference to the same source, Arthur Brooks, author of "Who Really Cares".

Who Really Cares about Arthur Brooks?
http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-really-cares-about-arthur-brooks.html

...you may remember Arthur Brooks, the guy who claimed that the entire country would soon be hard-core conservative (within fourteen years!) because conservatives were out-breeding liberals. Of course not only is this sheer nonsense because he ignored little things like immigration, it turned out that Brooks' numbers weren't even right.

So when I see that he's got a new book out claiming that conservatives are more charitable than liberals, I'm naturally quite skeptical. My previous experience with Brooks has led me to believe that he is highly disingenuous and not beyond jimmying the numbers to fit his thesis.

So I checked the General Social Survey, one of his sources, to see if the raw data do indeed fit his thesis. What a surprise, they don't. In nearly every case, the GSS data show that liberals contribute more and volunteer more than do conservatives. There are exceptions of course (for example, conservatives donate far more to religious organizations, which do some charitable work but are otherwise just social clubs), and there are many, many cases in which the data is ambiguous. But the general trend is that liberals are more generous than conservatives.

Of course Brooks claims to be correcting for certain things like age and income, and god only knows what else, so I don't doubt that he can pull his desired conclusion out of the data if he tries hard enough. But I'm more interested in what the data actually tell us about charitable giving, not in trying to score points for one ideology over another.

The most salient thing is that there is a huge variance in charitable giving among individuals within any one group. A small number of people give a whole lot, and a whole lot of people give very little. Effectively the same thing is true of volunteering, but even worse. The vast majority of people don't volunteer at all. This makes comparisons among arbitrarily selected groups rather meaningless, because in each group it's only a select few who are doing the giving. To me the central question that Brooks puts forth makes about as much sense as asking who is better at basketball, Americans or Chinese. If you limit the comparison only to the professionals, then Americans are probably better, but it would be meaningless to compare the entire populations of each country because most people either don't play basketball or don't take it very seriously if they do. Additionally, this makes appending percentages (as in, group A volunteers 50% more than group B) very misleading. A tiny number plus 50% is still a tiny number. Such differences would be far more meaningful if volunteering were widespread.

Here's something else that's worth mentioning. All of the data that Brooks number-crunched (a term that in this case may mean more than usual) came from surveys. Surveys are very good at telling us some things, but notoriously unreliable at others. One thing that they are definitely not good at is giving us an accurate gauge of how often people commit behaviors perceived as socially desirable. For example, twice as many people claim to attend church when asked in a survey than actually do attend church. Whether they're fooling themselves or trying to fool the interviewer, people will consistently overestimate how often they do things that they are "supposed" to do. (And they will likewise underestimate how often they do things they're not supposed to do, like drink alcohol.) It's impossible to believe that charitable giving doesn't fit the same pattern. So when Brooks claims that a religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person, does that mean that he's really more likely to do so, or just more likely to say that he did? Without some method of resolving this issue, Brooks' claims are pretty much meaningless, even if we accept his numbers at face value (which I do not).:

So much for Arthur Brooks and his conservative propaganda.

Posted by: justintime | May 17, 2008 1:29 PM

Wolverine: If education is truly a path out of poverty, then we need to look at the quality of education in poorer school districts, and the ways in which AFT and NEA have made it more difficult to run a school on a tight budget, have made it extremely difficult to let go of incompetent (and in some cases even criminal) teachers, and have embraced educational fads.

Wolverine blames teachers unions for America's mediocre educational system.
I wonder if he's ever taught in a public school classroom or tried to live on a teacher's salary.
I wonder what he thinks of Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' unfunded testing mandate.

Posted by: justintime | May 17, 2008 2:20 PM

During Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate, Charles Gibson of ABC News made the following statements about capital gains taxes:

* “Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent and George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent and in each instance when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money.”

* “So why raise it [the capital gains rate] at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected.”

EXPERTS AGREE THAT CAPITAL GAINS TAX CUTS LOSE REVENUE

Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run.
That’s the conclusion of the federal government’s official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the Bush Administration’s own Treasury Department.

http://www.cbpp.org/press-points.htm

Charles Gibson is a Republican stooge.
Trust him at your own risk, Ross.

Posted by: justintime | May 17, 2008 2:47 PM

Conservatives (across the monetary spectrum - from poor to extremely wealthy) give more to charity and the poor than do liberals, especially wealthy liberals.

That tells us nothing. As a letter published in my newspaper pointed out, conservatives do give more to arts groups, think tanks and churches but that often has little or nothing to do with the poor. (That's especially damning when you consider that well over 90 percent of the budget of most churches goes directly to staff salaries and benefits, building funding/upkeep and the like and is not likely to leave the doors of the church, let alone the neigborhood. What little that does often goes toward "missionary" work.)

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | May 17, 2008 3:06 PM

Justintime, I checked the "Who Really Cares about Arthur Brooks" link. Interesting little tidbit to notice is the "analysis" that this person did is not backed up by any statistics. (Is he a professional statistician or just some random conservative hater?) Where are his numbers that disprove Arthur Brooks? It would be very easy for him to say:

"So I checked the General Social Survey, one of his sources, to see if the raw data do indeed fit his thesis. What a surprise, they don't."

Funny, I just checked the General Social Survey, and they seem to back up Arthur Brooks. Now who should I believe? One blogger, one author, or multiple news organizations, or personal experience?

I guess it is all in what you chose to believe. Which spin machine - liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Right or Left. I just wish you didn't sound so angry. We are all part of God's family. Why can't we just get along?

Posted by: Armed2Win | May 17, 2008 3:31 PM

DITE: Anyway, I don’t think arguing which ideology is more charitable is really helping anyone.

On that we can agree, DITE.

'Are Conservatives more charitable than Liberals?'

Arthur Brooks raises yet another distraction in the never ending 'Conservative War Against Truth', attempting to direct the American dialogue away from any serious discussion of poverty and what to do about it.

Posted by: justintime | May 17, 2008 4:49 PM

I guess it is all in what you chose to believe. Which spin machine - liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Right or Left. I just wish you didn't sound so angry. We are all part of God's family. Why can't we just get along?

There's an example of a lazy mind, trying to justify what it already believes in.

If you choose to participate in our American democracy, folks, it becomes your duty to listen to all sides of the debate, cut through the spin, and seriously and objectively analyze the issue.

Don't fall down on the job.

Posted by: justintime | May 17, 2008 5:09 PM

Oh, and I forgot to add the requisite "stop listening to the left-wing noise machine".

Posted by: Ross | May 17, 2008 5:50 PM

Justintime, your analysis is wrong and classist! You should check your facts about tax cuts benefiting only the rich. Here are some statistics for your perusal, even though you will doubtless find fault with them. I am quoting from
another source. Within this very informative webpage are footnotes with MANY links to other sources for support.

Justintime, I encourage you to check this out. This firmly chastised lazy minded independent thinker found it an invigorating read! Here are a few snippets:

"The evidence shows that all Americans, rich and poor, benefited from President Bush's tax cuts. The rich saw taxes on their dividends and capital gains reduced (as well as their income taxes), and personal income tax rates were slashed across the board, which encompassed every middle-class taxpayer. Even the poor, who generally do not pay income taxes, were rewarded with a higher Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and child tax credits."

Here are some statistics:

"Our tax system, however, is highly progressive, meaning that as one's income rises, a higher proportion of that income is taxed. Thus, those in the highest tax brackets contribute more to the overall tax burden even though there are far more people in lower tax brackets.

* According to data from the IRS, the bottom 50 percent of income earners pay approximately 4 percent of income taxes.
* The top 25 percent of income earners pay nearly 83 percent of the income tax burden, and the top 10 percent pay 65 percent.
* The top 1 percent of income earners pay almost 35 percent of all income taxes.
* The top 400 richest Americans paid 1.58 of total income taxes in 2000."

"President Kennedy once said that a rising tide lifts all boats, and he was right. When the economy grows, rich and poor alike benefit from rising wages, incomes, and productivity. Conversely, stagnation hurts all income classes simultaneously. The evidence from the 1960s through today illustrates that lower tax rates correlate with rising incomes for all sections of the population. Even cuts on capital gains and dividends, often though to benefit only rich stockholders, allow for greater investment and more job creation, which ultimately helps lower-income Americans. Though the wealthy pay an enormous share of the overall tax burden, tax cuts on their income would not only bring in more revenue, but would help lower-income Americans become more upwardly mobile."

Oh, and by the way, I definitely don't mind a spirited debate. I wouldn't be on this decidedly left-wing blog if I didn't like a bit of discourse and challenge. I just thought your tone was mean-spirited and quite frankly, vitriolic; hence the comment, "why can't we just get along?"

Posted by: Armed2Win | May 17, 2008 8:26 PM

A2W quotes from "another source", which turns out to be The National Center for Policy Research, a right wing think tank with programs devoted to privatization in the following issue areas: taxes, Social Security and Medicare, health care, criminal justice, environment, education, and welfare.

Right-wing foundations funding NCPR include: Bradley, Scaife, Koch, Olin, Earhart, Castle Rock, and JM Foundations.

NCPA describes its accomplishments:
• "A package of pro-growth tax cuts, designed by the NCPR and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1991, became the core of the Contract With America in 1994."
• "NCPR Senior Fellow Bruce Bartlett's proposal for an across-the-board tax cut became the centerpiece of Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign and the focal point of the recent pro-growth approach to tax cuts. Bartlett's proposal also became the centerpiece of President Bush's tax cut proposal.
• The NCPR produced a policy backgrounder on the case for abolishing death taxes."
The NCPR also denies the human causes of global climate change, indeed that global climate change is actually happening.

In short, A2W references a right wing anti- tax 'think tank' funded by corporate interests as an accurate source of information on federal tax policy.

Don't make us laugh.

Posted by: justintime | May 17, 2008 9:20 PM

Justintime,

Your response bears no merit in a debate, as you did not deal with or provide any response to the statistics as reported from the IRS. All you did was label and discard based on your anti-conservative bias and due to an ideology different than yours. You sounded a lot like Edwards and Obama - empty platitudes. I would be more than willing to listen to your arguments if you actually provided facts other than liberal talking points, classism, and liberal jealousy. I am more than willing to debate - be just as courteous and provide your counter-logic.

Posted by: Armed2Win | May 17, 2008 9:47 PM

If you want a debate, A2W, make your point and we'll start from there.

Posted by: justintime | May 17, 2008 10:13 PM

I am a taxpayer and I can tell you this: when my taxes are down, my charitable giving is up.
The best part is that as I am able to determine who truly needs immediate help, my money goes straight to the source of need. Most of my charitable giving is actually done without benefit of a tax deduction since I just give it straight out, up front,in cash or in the form of a car or truck or helping with medical bills to the needy people that God sends my way. And I'm talking about tens of thousands of dollars. Stupid of me, financially speaking, as I do lose the tax benefit but it is the way I choose to operate and, in the end, it's all unto God anyway.
The point is: I vote Republican because the lower the tax rate, the more I have to give away.
I love Jesus.

Posted by: I love Jesus | May 17, 2008 10:50 PM

justintime,
I've told you several times what Obama's answer reveals to me. Go back and reread my prior posts. You said I was putting thoughts in his mind. If I'm doing so, how do you think I should interpret his answer?

I have already looked at Obama's tax policy. Some I like and some I don't.

Your reading list sounds like mine. Let's give each other pats on our backs.

Posted by: Ross | May 18, 2008 7:17 AM

"Poverty has been a subject of political debate for as long as I can remember, and addressing it will require that a lot of established interests be challenged, not all of them on the right." Wolverine

Please name some of the established interest on the right that do need to be challenged, Wolverine.

Posted by: JamesMartin | May 18, 2008 7:29 AM

Sinful human nature is a civil right to be enjoyed by Wallis' troops. There is so much poverty and crime in every democrat controlled inner-city. And it is given excuse and support and blamed on people that desire to leave it. Where is the section-eight housing in Ted Kennedy's neaghborhood. Both Ted and Jim want Democrat rule uber alles.

Posted by: Evangel means the Gospel. | May 18, 2008 8:40 AM

Typical right wing attitudes about poverty expressed by several posters on this thread:

1. Poverty doesn't exist in America because 76% of the poor have air conditioning, 97% have color tv, etc.

2. Even if poverty did exist in America, the poor are to blame for their own misery.

Do you think these attitudes are worthy of any serious discussion?

Posted by: justintime | May 18, 2008 11:43 AM

Not only that but the National Center for Policy Research promotes the delusion that Global Climate Change is not happening, so don't worry about it.

Do you think the NCPR deserves your uncritical trust?

Posted by: justintime | May 18, 2008 12:04 PM

Justintime, you continue to lash out and spew furious accusations, yet continue to provide little substance other than typical left-wing talking points - i.e. hateful conservative bashing. Exactly how productive is that to your cause? I don't even hear wrath like yours being spoken by Obama.

Nevertheless, I suppose your liberal sources and resources are more trustworthy than what I quoted? Your one-man blog against Arthur Brooks is more trustworthy than statistics gathered by many respected and reputable organizations, including the IRS? (For the record, I wouldn't call the IRS respected...LOL)

Justintime, perhaps just in time you will come to realize that your tantrums will not bring about the change that you hope to inspire, for it is not inspirational or conducive for self-reevaluation and for honest dialog. Truly, your attitude doesn't even seem to meld well with the "yes-we-can-change" that Obama speaks about.

An old saying from some folks who really understand freedom - my WWII era grandparents - you can win more flies with honey than vinegar.

Posted by: Armed2Win | May 18, 2008 12:47 PM

James:

I'll give you two: agribusiness (the subsidies are just too rich here) and employers who intentionally make use of illegal immigrant labor (especially when they take advantage of illegals to pay extremely low wages or maintain substandard working conditions).

Now will you acknowledge that teachers unions bear some responsibility for the poor quality of many public school systems?

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | May 18, 2008 1:38 PM

Actually the topic of this thread is poverty.

So Wolverine proposes that teachers unions are behind the poor performance of our public school system and thereby contribute to poverty in America.

We all concede that typically, poor people are poorly educated.
But does Wolverine think that outlawing teachers unions will improve our education system and thereby lift the poor out of their poverty?
Do teachers unions cause poverty?
I don't think so.

Posted by: justintime | May 18, 2008 2:28 PM

Justintime,
If you don’t want to trust anyone’s stats except your own, just do a google image search of “capital gains tax revenue,” and look at the charts. If you look a little deeper you can find projections, like yours, that say tax revenues will go down in response to a purposed capital gains tax rate cut. Forecasts that say there will be a decrease in capital gains tax revenue always severely underestimate economic growth. What makes you think that this time there will be a decrease in capital gains realizations while the last 50 years say otherwise?

“Cutting taxes to stimulate the economy is a smokescreen for corporate welfare and a net loser for the American economy.”
I’m not trying to be a jerk, but seriously, have you ever taken an economics class? Do you think the corporate elites have control over all economic text books and professors that say tax cuts increase spending and consumption which increases aggregate output? Even rational liberals acknowledge that tax cuts stimulate an economy, but they argue against them because they aren’t fair or don’t engage in distributive justice.

Posted by: DITE | May 18, 2008 2:51 PM

DITE: Forecasts that say there will be a decrease in capital gains tax revenue always severely underestimate economic growth. What makes you think that this time there will be a decrease in capital gains realizations while the last 50 years say otherwise?

I'm not looking in a rear view mirror like you are, DITE.
The economic forecasts I've seen aren't as optimistic as you seem to be.
What makes you think tomorrow will be just like the last 50 years?

Posted by: justintime | May 18, 2008 3:05 PM

Armed2Win Abramoff, by the way, played to both sides of the political isle - he was in the Dems pockets too...

This was primarily a Republican network of corruption.
Abramoff had no use for Democrats.
Democrats had no power to do anything in the Republican rubber stamp Congress of 2000-2006.

Posted by: justintime | May 18, 2008 3:41 PM

“I'm not looking in a rear view mirror like you are, DITE.”

Yeah, you’re right, there is no use trying to learn from our history. That sentence is a pretty good summation of why liberal policies continue to fail.

“I just did that and found the only site arguing the case that 'cutting capital gains taxes increases revenue' is the Cato Institute.”

I suggested that you do a google IMAGE search. That way you can look at the charts and come to your own conclusion. All the charts look pretty much the same so its tough to see conservative or liberal bias in them.

Posted by: DITE | May 18, 2008 4:14 PM

"10. If you expose their false victim hood, they will pout and might leave the discussion entirely."

One can only dream.

Liberal policies fail because of sabotage from liberals and conservatives. It's why welfare failed but again conservatives don't want to be honest about the role they play in undermining liberal policies. Reagan undermined and gutted programs that were starting to show progress and then kept the policies there to show how government can't do it.

"Yeah, you’re right, there is no use trying to learn from our history. That sentence is a pretty good summation of why liberal policies continue to fail."

How honest do you want to be about our history? If you want to be really honest will you admit to the fact that when we have had unfettered, unregulated capitalism in food and other industries there was more injustice? Anyone remember the roaring 20's? has anyone read Slaughterhouse?

We had unregulated capitalism and it hurt a lot of people, far more than have been hurt by botched ideas of liberal welfare policy.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 18, 2008 4:38 PM

There once was a boy from Seattle,
He filled an entire blog with his prattle,
His arguments, they were lame,
His attitude, quite a shame,
He just proved he was all hat and no cattle.

From him, comity we've not come to expect,
Christ's love, does he reflect?
He'll pull out his clichés,
and his catch phrase,
But when in a box he'll just change the subject.

He creates his lists to provoke ire,
Of them, even other Progressives tire,
"You give us a bad name!" they cry!
His opponents just sigh,
They know he just listens to his own left-wing choir.

Posted by: Poetess | May 18, 2008 6:46 PM

Justintime, your so called logic and common sense can't even come close to the genius of the Poetess. Why? You aren't even creative when you slam conservatives or anyone that disagrees with you. You just sound like Rosie O'Donnell - shrill and angry.

Sorry, dude... Oh and by the way, any money that the Republicans got from Abramoff, they returned. The Dems kept it. Interesting...

Posted by: Armed2Win | May 18, 2008 7:40 PM

“Reagan undermined and gutted programs that were starting to show progress and then kept the policies there to show how government can't do it.”

Reagan hardly gutted welfare programs. The amount of money spent on welfare continued to grow until its peak in 1994. The problem with welfare is it encouraged, even bribed, people to make bad decisions. So, as AFDC got more funding it was able to provide more people more incentives to not work and have children out of wedlock. This tired liberal attitude that, “If we just had a few more million dollars…” just doesn’t work. To the shock and awe of liberals childhood poverty fell after welfare reform. Now, many liberals love to credit Clinton with this achievement (which he does deserve some credit for).

I’m not against all government regulation. It is inaccurate, however, to say that we had “unregulated capitalism” at any point in the 20th century. There were for example damaging protectionist trade policies that limited growth and hurt poor people. As bad as the factories were, people voluntarily worked for them. It was the first time people without land or education could really provide for themselves. Conditions on farms weren’t a lot better. But, I will, of course, admit that the 1920’s were more unjust than now. But, guess what? Things didn’t get much better during the New Deal 1930s. New Deal policies failed for about a decade until war spending finally got us out of the depression. Short story long, both ideologies have mistakes to learn from.

Justintime, I never said that poverty does not exist in America. Poverty can be reduced through a pro business and growing economy (think Texas rather than Ohio). Poverty can be reduced through more choice and competition in education. Poverty can be reduced by eliminating or reforming entitlement programs that subsidize poverty. Welfare reform was a good start.

Posted by: DITE | May 18, 2008 8:08 PM

Justintime, I never said that poverty does not exist in America. Poverty can be reduced through a pro business and growing economy (think Texas rather than Ohio). Poverty can be reduced through more choice and competition in education. Poverty can be reduced by eliminating or reforming entitlement programs that subsidize poverty. Welfare reform was a good start.

There you have it folks, in a nutshell.
The conservative Republican Trickle Down Poverty Program - it hasn't changed since Ronald Reagan.

Is it working?

I don't think so.

Do you?

Posted by: justintime | May 18, 2008 8:52 PM

"Reagan hardly gutted welfare programs."

You might want to do a little bit more research. Reagan did gut programs for the poor and welfare. Here are a couple of quotes.

"The WRAP report points out that in 1978, before Reagan took office, the annual budget for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was $83 billion. In 1983, during the middle of Reagan's first term, the HUD budget had been recklessly slashed to only $18 billion. The nation has never recovered from this deliberately manufactured crisis in affordable housing."

"Due to the immediate growth in homelessness triggered by these cutbacks, Congress passed the Stewart B. McKinney Act in 1987, providing a paltry $880 million in annual homeless assistance, an amount so small that it could never in a thousand years offset the massive damage caused by Reagan's gutting of the HUD budget. Since 1987, McKinney homeless funding has never risen above $1.4 billion annually.

The Without Housing report states: "Our conclusion is that the national crisis of mass homelessness cannot and will not be resolved without a recommitment by the federal government to fully fund legitimate housing programs. No matter how many hundreds of plans that communities are required to write, filling a $54 billion hole in affordable housing with $1.4 billion in homeless assistance funding is an exercise in futility that can never be compensated for by any amount of local coordination or consolidation."

I got that from here.
http://www.createpeaceathome.org/streetspirit/2006/october2006/housingcuts.htm

I can provide a lot more. There is a lot of info out there.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 18, 2008 9:06 PM

Armed,

I would not call what you are doing intelligent discussion. You can't just dismiss a page because you question it's validity. Show where they are lying instead of being so obstinate. Before you dismiss it why don't you just read it, research it and then go from there.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 18, 2008 9:32 PM

Payshun, where were you in regard to 90% of Justintime's postings? Or do you agree with him, thus your comments towards me?

Posted by: Armed2Win | May 18, 2008 9:35 PM

Payshun, where were you in regard to 90% of Justintime's postings? Or do you agree with him, thus your comments towards me?

Armed2Win thinks this is a popularity contest.

Posted by: justintime | May 18, 2008 9:45 PM

Armed2win,
Come on, that's not really fair. Don't force Payshun to answer for everything justintime says just because they're on the same side of the political spectrum. I wouldn't want to have to answer for every crazy right-winger (Ann Coulter comes to mind) just because we both hold right-of-center political views. Payshun shouldn't be asked to make excuses for the leftwing equivalent of Coulter. :)

Posted by: Ross | May 18, 2008 10:31 PM

"Were you free to sell beef to another country without it being subject to harsh tariffs? No. Why? Because there were trade regulations. I think some industries were “under-regulated.”"

Considering it was not really beef there were selling anyway I think you made things clearer. The problem was there was no regulation about what people were making and that's a fact. You can't claim that something is under-regulated when it was not even regulated to begin with.

Armed to Win,

My point is that you should do your research before you casually dismiss something. Yes, I do agree with him but that doesn't mean that I am not open to reading your sources and then making a decision from there.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 18, 2008 11:36 PM

Armed2Win what?

Posted by: canucklehead | May 19, 2008 12:06 AM

"Yes, I do agree with him but that doesn't mean that I am not open to reading your sources and then making a decision from there. "

Did you read the post to which he was responding when he dismissed the Talking Points Memo? It was kind of a goose-gander thing.

At any rate, I would note that John McCain has reaffirmed his opposition to farm subsidies, which is a concrete step toward fighting poverty. Not only that, but it is one for which he'll have to pay a political price.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 19, 2008 8:18 AM

Sounds like Kevin is getting behind McCain.
I wonder if he's been paying attention to McCain's credibility problem.

http://therealmccain.com/

Posted by: justintime | May 19, 2008 12:40 PM

Lobbyists are running John McCain's campaign.

With five high-level resignations from McCain's campaign staff in the last week or so and the prominence of coverage about those departures, you might think McCain is really cleaning house.
Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport resigned from
McCain's campaign because they had lobbied for the military junta in Myanmar.
Tom Loeffler, McCain's Fundraising Chair, has left the campaign because he was unwilling to give up his lobbying activities.

Even with just the resignations of the last ten days, McCain has shown a real inconsistency about what kind of lobbying ties compromise his campaign. With Loeffler and Eric Burgeson, there seem to have been two problems. First, both were active lobbyists, who lobbied the Senate for clients whose issues fell squarely in the purview of the Commerce, Armed Services, and Indian Affairs Committees on which McCain serves. In addition, both represented foreign "countries," Loeffler Saudi Arabia and Burgeson the Kurds.

Of course, that's true of Charlie Black, as well. For example, Black lobbied the Senate on FISA, represented Ahmad Chalabi, coached Blackwater for the Senate hearings and has had an affinity for representing evil dictators throughout his career. Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus.

So why is okay for Charlie Black to stick around while Loeffler and Burgeson take their blackberries and go home?

How do you separate either the policies McCain espoused because Charlie Black--lobbyist for AT&T--or Eric Burgeson--lobbyist for liquid coal and nuclear energy--or Tom Loeffler--lobbyist for Saudi Arabia--advised him to adopt those policies? And how do you dissociate McCain's primary victory from the work these folks did? It sure seems like McCain's primary victory is, and will always be, tainted by Mr. AT&T, Mr. Nuclear Energy, and Mr. Saudi Arabia.

The McCain campaign employed a number of people who were actively lobbying the Senate on subjects central to McCain's interests. That's not a perception problem, it's a real ethical problem, a stench the campaign can't cleanse simply by considering it a "perception problem." McCain's campaign and McCain's policies have been bought and sold by lobbyists, something that doesn't appear to be changing anytime soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjCYmjjxp8I

Kevin?

Posted by: justintime | May 19, 2008 1:28 PM

Justintime,

I've been over the lobbying thing with you before.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 19, 2008 1:52 PM

Now that Justintime has thoroughly trash-talked everyone but God, the pope, the Dalai lama, and oh yeah, his personal messiah, Obama, I would be curious to know exactly how he is working to eradicate poverty, other than vilifying anyone who disagrees with him.

Justintime?

Posted by: Armed2Win | May 19, 2008 3:04 PM

"Issues of credibility and integrity mean nothing to a true believer."

I never thought McCain was credible on this issue. I don't know why you are making light of my education. Where did that tact come from?

Do you have any thoughts on farm subsidies as it relates to poverty?

Posted by: kevin s. | May 19, 2008 3:34 PM

Probably the biggest challenge in eradicating poverty is convincing conservatives that poverty actually exists in America.

If we can agree on this, the next challenge is convincing conservatives that the poor are not always to blame for their own misery.

If we can overcome this barrier we arrive at a point where a discussion of what to do about poverty is possible.

The next challenge is to get conservatives to think beyond Republican Trickle Down Poverty Programs and that other measures outside of this box are worth considering.

This turns out to be a lot of work, and with some conservative true believers, even a strenuous effort can fail.

As far as personal acts to alleviate the suffering of the poor in the real world, Armed2Win, you go first.
Tell us what you are doing to alleviate the suffering of the poor.
I hope you're setting a good example for the rest of us.

Posted by: justintime | May 19, 2008 3:35 PM

For another look into Obama's lobbyist ties, see this link.

OK, one last look into the Obamalobby can be found from the Boston Globe. Here is a good quote:

"But behind Obama's campaign rhetoric about taking on special interests lies a more complicated truth. A Globe review of Obama's campaign finance records shows that he collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from lobbyists and PACs as a state legislator in Illinois, a US senator, and a presidential aspirant.

In Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, almost two-thirds of the money he raised for his campaigns -- $296,000 of $461,000 -- came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to Illinois Board of Elections records. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, the records show.

Obama's US Senate campaign committee, starting with his successful run in 2004, has collected $128,000 from lobbyists and $1.3 million from PACs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit organization that tracks money in politics. His $1.3 million from PACs represents 8 percent of what he has raised overall. Clinton's Senate committee, by comparison, has raised $3 million from PACs, 4 percent of her total amount raised, the group said.

In addition, Obama's own federal PAC, Hopefund, took in $115,000 from 56 PACs in the 2005-2006 election cycle out of $4.4 million the PAC raised, according to CQ MoneyLine, which collects Federal Election Commission data. Obama then used those PAC contributions -- including thousands from defense contractors, law firms, and the securities and insurance industries -- to build support for his presidential run by making donations to Democratic Party organizations and candidates around the country."

Just words, Justintime? Maybe the focus should be back on poverty...

And I figured you wouldn't give a straight answer on what you are doing to alleviate poverty - you preach and preach and scold and thrash, but all you can come up with