Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Did you see the racial breakdown? The newly impoverished all come from the white middle-class, with black and Hispanic numbers remaining level. I thought that was interesting.

6 million middle-class Americans slid into poverty since President Bush became president. That’s crazy. Good article, jt.

It is even worse when tuition at state schools is examined. State colleges and universities offer education bargains, but costs have increased dramatically making this stepping stone to prosperity less affordable. Who benefits? Not the poorest, those who need this resource the most.

It’s really sad. 3 out of 5 kids in Texas live in Proverty. It doesn’t help with jobs being shipped over seas b/c it will cost less. It’s BS what ever happen to supporting our own country and making sure their our jobs for people in our OWN country. It’s BS to tell ya the truth. I hope Bush goes down in the history books as a horrible President.

but hey! We can’t feel too bad for the wealthy… I’m mean, come on… ‘it’s hard work’ , ya know?

I also find it very scary, that as the middle class slide into poverty (and take a large portion of our economic engine with them) we’ve build up the most debt in history… pretty much along the same timeline. I don’t think the wealthy will want to pony up much to pay off that debt, and I’m pretty sure you can’t squeeze blood from a turnip… hey, look at all those useless social programs that the wealthy don’t need. Zap those to pay off the debt!

Well, at least we can let the poor, young people work off their frustrations by trying to kill people in foreign lands.

The article is nicely presented and informative. I went to the referenced Census Bureau Report to review some of the data. It is a terrific report over 200 pages in length.

I did not read every single item of text or analyze every chart. There are a few items that jumped off the page as I was scanning through however. Among these are :

[1] Just under 50 % of the people who were in the poverty catagory in 1996 were not in the poverty catagory in 1999

[2] 6.8% of the population numbers used in the poverty and income statistics were non-citizens.

[3] The percentage rise in poverty in 2004 was .002.

“[1] Just under 50 % of the people who were in the poverty catagory in 1996 were not in the poverty catagory in 1999”

In other words most never got out of poverty and those who did were just replaced with others. Nice spin though.

Since someone’s bound to say it, let’s just get it out of the way:

“Clinton’s apparent economic success was bolstered by the dot com bubble and cannot be attributed to him.”

“Bush’s apparent economic failure was due to many market factors that he has no control over.”

Okay, yeah yeah. But isn’t it an interesting coincidence how both presidents managed to benefit their “core audiences” without having any real control over the economy?

To me this points up one of the biggest differences between the political ideologies, which is that the Republicans tend to believe everyone gets what they deserve and the Democrats tend to believe the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor. Me, I find it very hard to believe that this wouldn’t be a better place to live if the obscenely rich were a little less obscene.

>>Clinton’s apparent economic success was bolstered by the dot com bubble and cannot be attributed to him.>>

In 1993 Clinton changed George HW Bush’s policy toward R&D. Clinton proposed changes in the tax laws to write-off R&D costs. i think that policy change helped promote the innovation, specifically in the technology sector, that happened in the mid-to-late 90s.

“”This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.”

Bush
10/20/2000

For a note to the business side of things: 2 of the biggest benefactors of the Bush policies have been Haliburton & the Oil companies. hmmmm

Concerning the drop in middle class incomes and stats in general, what disturbs me is that a strong middle/merchant class is essential to a healthy democracy. History has a long record when it comes to that.
The sad thing is, most conservatives see nothing wrong with this development. If the tax breaks they so purport to help small businesses prosper, where are those jobs that the middle class usually fill in that sector?

And Bush is loaning taxpayer paid oil reserves to private refineries as reported today. What’s your bet the tax payer does not get repaid at the prices of oil when repaid, which will be higher; and without interest? All the while the refinery gets to keep racking up them obscene profits from the pumps.

Nothing wrong with the humanist tenet of survival of the fittest. Natural law and all.

i’d like to see the day where the top position in a company paid no more in wages and benefits that 10% above the lowest paid worker/sub-contractor there.

Consise, well written article.
jt:
“The fact that more people are in poverty now than when Bush took office in 2001 should be a clear indication that Bush’s policies haven’t worked, aren’t working and won’t work ever.”

I agree. But then, that trickle down crap didn’t flush with Reagan either. It has always been a deeply flawed concept.

“Numbers tell stories. I’m sure there are those that can weave an intricate tale of how those newly anointed Americans that fell into poverty are actually benefiting from Bush’s policies.”

Yeah, and if anyone has the audacity to complain they’d probably say those folks just don’t believe in personal responsibility!

Alejo — I couldn’t agree more.

tony:
“For a note to the business side of things: 2 of the biggest benefactors of the Bush policies have been Haliburton & the Oil companies. hmmmm”

Yeah, real coincidence there. And wait until winter comes — after Katrina’s devastation (so horrific), home heating oil prices in America are now predicted to go through the roof. Many people might have to start choosing between whether to eat or stay warm, but it’ll please the energy companies, knowing that their record profits are sure to continue.

Trickle down doesn’t work when the trickles get dammed up andpocketed or diverted to other societies.. of course also with enough left over to pocket, but none to trickle down.

It does not work period.

hmmm.. new theory for water management in the works now?

i recall last season watching an episode of Entreprenuer where a candidate with immunity chose -horrors!- to bear the same responsibility as his team members. He like hundreds of thousands of school children heard yet again the humanist response to charity mercy and sacrifice.. “STUPID, STUPID, STUPID”

Face it. The Democratic NEA and their partners have been indoctrinating our school children with secular humanism for, hmmm… about a generation now. But for some reason you all do not seem so pleased with the harvest of your hard work to control the public schools. Such faith based ideals as charity and sacrifice, qulaity and integrity have no place in business today.. unless they can be used as apolitical or PR bargaining chip… appearances and winning are all that matters. Forget how one plays the game.

Welcome to America, land of progressive humanism and class wars but free from the bane of faith.

Jo, A generation ago? The average CEO is not 30 something, nor 40 something. Thats like blaiming enron on barney the dinosaur. Its more like the CEOs cut their teeth in the corporate world during the greed is good 1980’s otherwise known as the Reagan years, or the template for today’s Bushies.

Jo, Which company is more Christian? Wal-mart or Starbucks? Now which treats their employees better?

Reagan was president of the nation in the 80’s … who controlled the NEA?

Companies are not Christians, people are. And Christianity is not the only faith that promotes charity and sacrifice.

Yes he was and those entering the ranks of management then were not still in school. They are the ones who now run many of the shows not a thirty something like myself. Those pulling the levers now are still the babyboomers.

Sounds like a lot of class envy. Sounds like everyone is in favor of socialism. What makes America great is one can be successful as they desire if they make the right decisions. It is not up to the government. That is the biggest problem with liberals is libs are always looking to see how the governemnt and big business has held them down.

Haliburton is a company that does somethings virtually no other company can do and they do it well. The Clinton administration used them in very sililar ways the Bush administration does includeing no bid contracts. Haliburton became the poster child to angry libs only because the VP was once CEO. This has been a very unfair attack of a good company.

The Clinton administration was the benefactor of a very sound a robust economy. Clinton was smart enough to stay out of its way and collect the credit. Any administration’s policies take a while to feel their effect on the economy. So, if anything, we are suffering from what Clinton did not do. It is hard to blame the 2000 economic free fall on an administration yet to initiate any economic policy changes.

As one might expect, the oldest CEOs have been with their companies longer and have been in the top job longer (average tenure as CEO: 28 years) than the younger CEOs. But the youngest CEOs are hardly new to their jobs, having served as CEOs for an average of 12 years. Indeed, the youngest CEO on our list, Michael Dell, 38, founder of Dell Computer (nasdaq: DELL - news - people ), has been CEO of his company for 19 years, or half his life. The average CEO on our overall list is much greener than those in either group, having served just seven years as boss.

http://www.forbes.com/2003/05/08/cx_da_0508ceointro.html

It is not sour grapes, you can work 40 hours a week at minimum wage and still not be able to afford to pay rent. Thankfully I have a decent job but I recognize that many do not.
It is strange though how I am not a christian yet my beliefs and actions are so much more christian than many devout christians. I wholly believe in charity. There are those who need it so when possible I give it. Show me when Jesus ever said get a job? You cannot call yourself a christian when you lack all empathy.

The major issue with education (starting in the early 80s) was the hyper-focus on math and science at the expense of art, music… And before anyone starts going off about me a soft-hearted liberal, read up on the greater effects art and music have to the early and mid stages of brain development.

My uncle - who works for a multi-nation corp. (we don’t really see eye-to-eye on much, but…) he says that the biggest fault in the education system (and resulting employee pool) is the lack of creative thinking development. People are now trained to see the black & white in situations rather than the more subtle grays. This leads people to the ability to see what’s right in front of them… but as far as long term thinking or the ability to find creative solutions are beyond their reach.

Oddly enough - from a poll of CEOs and lead HR executives - the best degree for creative thinking and development of best business practices is philosophy. So - if our corp. execs had more training in music or art and spent a little more time in college contemplating whether or not ‘God has feet’ - they would probably be much better at strategic long term planning and thinking.

Thank you Jo, the youngest CEO on their list was 38. So was he even subjected to progressive humanism?

Vague,

i do not know. He could have gone to private school or even been home schooled for that matter. The liberals have had control over our public elemenatry schools and colleges for decades. i am 47 and i experienced it minimally though not as much as my children.

jo

mikeh:

>>libs are always looking to see how the government and big business has held them down>>
MikeH, i’d like to see some substantive examples of this assertion; can you post them? Thanks.

>>The Clinton administration was the benefactor of a very sound a robust economy….>>
i’ve already described a specific policy that Clinton pushed to promote business innovation. It is my belief that by allowing businesses to write-off their R&D expenses that his helped develop many of the innovative technological advances of the 90s. i don’t think Clinton created those innovation, but i think he allowed businesses the room to breath.

Bush, on the other hand, was just the opposite; he thwarted innovation. Early in his term, technology industries like the nanotechnology, biochemical and alternative energy industries were emerging from the dot-com dust. The amount of venture capital (VC) money going into those industries in 2001 was substantial. It all but dried up when Bush, by act of executive order, shut down the funding and R&D tax credits.

jo

secular humanitists do not advocate “survival of the fittest” as a philosphy as you seem to think they are. you are probally thinking of social darwinists, a small minority of atheists. secular humanitists believe in helping others not apathy because they weren’t the “fittest”. i urge you to research the terms you use before posting.

Voice of Reason:

Secular humanism, progressive humanism, social darwinism… the names and meanings change, er, evolve at the slef interests and whims of the time. The results are the same.. natural law. One’s only obligation is to one’s own kind any comprimising is toward increasing personal (tribe, group) power and influence.

jo

One’s own kind, do you mean the human race?

vague,

Glance around the globe to see the ‘natural’ form of humanism…. clans, tribes, warlords, street gangs, political parties, PACS. Great apes also exhibit this behavior, who knows, they may pass us sooner than some might think.

I saw it on September 11th when the whole world was united in our cause until of course your compassionate leader drove them all away. You belong until you choose not to.

Vague,

Yale educated in the new tradition sans honor codes he is the president of America, yours as well as mine.

While he is the president, he certainly in no way represents my beliefs, priorities or opinions except in that he is loyal to friends, Mr. Rove can do no wrong.

Nor mine. And Rove should be indicted.

Sounds like a lot of class envy. Sounds like everyone is in favor of socialism. What makes America great is one can be successful as they desire if they make the right decisions. It is not up to the government. That is the biggest problem with liberals is libs are always looking to see how the governemnt and big business has held them down.

And I thought the lefties were idealistic! Although the phrase “all men are created equal” is integral to our form of government, it doesn’t mean that everyone has the same abilities; it simply means everyone has the same rights under the law. Saying all that’s necessary for success is making “the right decisions” is like saying all it takes to be a programmer is pushing “the right buttons.” We make decisions based on what we’ve learned from our parents, our education, and our experience.
Do you honestly believe that Bill Gates could be where he is today if his mother was a crack addict and he had an IQ of 63?
I don’t know that I would call myself a “lib” but I certainly wouldn’t blame anyone else for my situation — since I have a degree and am employed — but I do believe government policies are responsible for keeping other people down. (“Libs” are actually thinking about more than themselves when they think about government. Imagine that.)

Alejo,

Although the phrase “all men are created equal” is integral to our form of government, it doesn’t mean that everyone has the same abilities; it simply means everyone has the same rights under the law.

Well said.

If the GOP is going to claim Christian ideals it might serve them well to exhibit just a few now and again.

jo:

i consider myself a secular humanist. and by that i mean that i don’t know what lies beyond the wall of life and death…i have never had a “calling” to any one religion, and so have never felt right worshipping a particular way.

what i do know is that i cannot comprehend the afterlife, but while i am here, i know i have to try and live my life the best that i can, because it’s all the time that i’ve got. i am not out to amass power, or do things for political gain. i have long since gotten over the concept of living life in fear of punishment after death. i choose to live a moral life by being decent to others, raising a family with good values, and loving and honoring this woman who i share my life with, and who i am lucky to have. this has nothing to do with christian values, since many of the same values can be found in other religions around the world. it’s a human concept, and we can choose to lead a decent life, or not.

you seem to want to demonize secular humanism, which is odd to me…there are alot of people who are secular, like some of the CEO’s that you have mentioned, but that doesn’t necessarily make them humanists. If they were, the Big Oil companies would be a little more pro-people and less pro-hide our profit in offshore accounts.

you say: “One’s only obligation is to one’s own kind any comprimising is toward increasing personal (tribe, group) power and influence.”

well, this can be applied to any number of things, including religion. religion grows by raising more believers. you have your congregation, and encourage them to have children that you raise in that church, hence the church grows. now we have super-churches where the thousands can go and worship. is this not the same thing as “natural law”?

i am sincerely confused by the majority of your posts here…you seem more hellbent on contradicting anything that anyone says rather than establishing a challenging dialogue.

views -

Interesting post. I agree with what you said… it falls in line with my beliefs… and I am always at odds with a religion (Christianity) that I think can be a very good roadmap to follow in life - but drives me insane when I meet others who follow it so ,,,’loudly.’

For example (a bumper sticker I saw):
One Nation under GOD, LIKE IT OR NOT!

“If the GOP is going to claim Christian ideals it might serve them well to exhibit just a few now and again.”

So true. But then, if “Christians” actually tried to follow the teachings of Jesus, they’d never, ever wish to belong to the GOP:

“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

“I was thirsty and you gave me to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me…
Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, so you do unto me.”

“The last shall be first, and the first shall be last.”

“A rich person aiming for heaven is like a camel trying to walk through the eye of a needle.”

“You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you, Do not resist an Evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also.”

Now I’m an agnostic and a firm believer in secular humanism, but I’ve always been able to spot good philosophy when I see it — and this philosophy has nothing to do with greed, harsh judgements and “personal responsibility”, but has everything to do with mankind’s collective responsibility — to live peacefully, to be generous and kind, and to always take care of each other.

Views,

i am glad that you choose to be moral . However many species are social and demonstrate levels of ‘morality’. As you said, even religions fall to survival mode and look for numbers and growth. i see a lot of this in christian groups in America as well as other religious groups. That’s what they are, groups exhibiting group (arge or small) dynamics.

While i am not used to being vocal, i feel the times demand it. Shouting on street corners etc has never been my thing but i am finding the internet easier on my ears and vocal chords than i thought was possible in stepping out like an activist. Mostly i am just trying to be heard for a change because i do not see myself represented. The clincher was my own moral failing and chose the situational ethics prevalent in today’s society. Yes i had the lost at sea lesson a few times in school.

Last election for the first time i did not vote my consience; but voted the power bloc (group, tribe, party) method. i left Nader to vote against the Democratic party. i am an independant. i am (or try to be) Christian. But i do not want to take away your free will. In fact my faith demands i respect it at all cost, to my very life. Yet neither do i want humanists to continue forcing their choices values and beliefs on others. (School vouchers for example.)

What was the last straw for me was the coordinated efforts by the gay movement to undermine our judiciary and subjugate the will of the people. It is not just that i feel they think they are presenting themselves as better than the blacks and women who had to fight, struggle, suffer & protest while still respecting the will of the people. It is that they are tearing down the framework which has kept us from the tribalism and warlord fracturing which plague the rest of the world. Yes, the right is also replete with instances of misuse and abuse of political power including judicial… but they are not co-ordinated and are not supported so whole-heartedly as is being done in the DNC. This is a new and imo, very dangerous development.

Today it is secular humanists, but the next generation may find scientologists or NAMBLA with the political power and influence to similarly undermine the will of the people and demand their version of health care or definition of marriage. The only time we as a people have not worked within the framework of our government was the war between the states. Continue to tear down our government and our soldiers won’t have far to travel.

One last thing, how did you decide your morals?

Thank you for listening and i apologize that my lack of conformity has irritated so many.

jo

Adrienne,

You forgot

1Cr 13:5-8
Charity suffereth long, [and] is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity never faileth: but whether [there be] prophecies, they shall fail; whether [there be] tongues, they shall cease; whether [there be] knowledge, it shall vanish away.

and

Eze 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

jo:

well: first lets get some things clear.

you are anti- gay rights…alright thats fine, however you want to live. i don’t rightly know what any gay person has done to you, but i am sure it has to do with your convictions.

I, have many gay friends, several of them are dedicated couples, and see alot of similarities in their lives as i see in mine and my wife’s. but, mabey you haven’t experienced that and so you have nothing to frame it to. i don’t know your story.

you just compared secular humanism to scientology ( a cult) and NAMBLA, the man-boy love association?! how you came to this leap of logic i don’t really want to know. NAMBLA is a horrific organization that I am stunned exists…but it in no way has anything to do with secular humanism…it’s just perverts wanting to touch little boys. to give it any other credence is to give it justification. don’t do that.

clearly…you and i are on much different wavelengths.

as for how i chose my morals, look around..well, college philosophy classes helped, but for the most part i realized that my in my heart i knew what i felt was right. what was just. and when i compared what i felt in my heart with what was prescribed by several religions, i found that they matched up.

i have found that my life is fuller and more complete by the various people that inhabit it. from all walks of life, all types of humor, all levels of education, it makes life richer to know more.

so…there is a start to your question i guess.

Views,

As your situation is different than mine and i assume than exactly anyone else’s, i have nothing to gauge how your values mught line up or differ from mine. Neither can i assume that your morals might be adopted by others.

Not everyone in the US considers scientology a cult or NAMBLA a group of perverts. There values differ from mine and are generally known enough to use for comparison markers.

i am for health and other civil benefits and liberties for gays. i personally do not agree with gay marriage but it is not for me to tell others how they must live. Neither do i think it is right for gays to tell others whose beliefs differ from theirs how to believe. Then again, neither do i want fundamental protestants defining in our civil law the sacraments of my church.

i am against the government intrusion in churches. i am against the government registering and recording traditions and ceremonies in churches. i am against goverment licensing clergy.

i understand goverment desiring to encourage a stable society. That’s fine. Do it civilly, don’t blend the state with faith. Couples, straight gay or otherwise can register civilly for governmental purposes, and keep our churches for faith purposes.

That government is now involved in marriage at all is wrong as their original requirment that they be performed by priests clearly indicates. This however won’t be corrected but compounded by the present actions of the gay movement. More and more laws are being passed concerning that which should be the realm of the church not the state. Let our individual churches decide what their sacraments are and let the civil government decide what contract law will be.

i have no right to tell gays they have to believe or live as i do, and neither should they or the government tell me and others how we are to believe. If that makes me anti-gay rights, so be it. Vice versa, it means gays are anti christian rights, anti muslim rights etc. What is so wrong with live and let live?

jo

—-
That government is now involved in marriage at all is wrong as their original requirment that they be performed by priests clearly indicates.
—-

The issue with this is that until recently, it was pretty much assumed (by government and by churches) that marriage was the union of 2 people. I know that many people would go to the courthouse to get married - to avoid the religious aspect, but still it was considered being married. Now that gay people want to be married, it is all of a sudden marriage vs civil union. We have the state and religions arguing over who owns marriage now. The government has always been involved in marriage - it is an official, legal arrangement, and that belongs to the State.

So - while I think we can all see the connection that marriage and religion have, there’s also a social/legal aspect that demands that marriage be controlled by the State. And now that gays are trying to be treated equally, people want to offer up a separate-but-equal type of solution, which I think rings pretty hollow.

Tony:

You choose to believe that marriage is “an official, legal arrangement, and that belongs to the State.”i believe marriage a Mystery of the Church given by the grace of God. This has been taught in my Church for a couple thousand years now.

While i disagree that the government has always been involved in marriage, even if in your eyes it has been… that original ‘involvment’ specifically identified marriage as a function of the Church by insisting it be performed (originally) by clergy.

Let’s see. Seperate but equal, yes, i think that is what i would like.

You free to choose what you believe and to live and practice according to those beliefs.
i free to choose what i believe and to live and practice according to my beliefs.
You free to register a civil partnership with the government.
i free to register a civil partnership with the government.
You free to partake or not of any services provided by the church of your choice.
i free to partake or not of any services provided by the church of my choice.
You not free to impose your beliefs or practices on me.
i not free to impose my beliefs and practices on you.

You with your beliefs, me with my beliefs and so we are separate.
We both have access to the same civil benefits from the state, and so we are equal in the eyes of the state.

Yes. That is my position. Seperate but equal.

If i am reading your position correctly, you do not think it is equal unless i agree, consent and submit to your beliefs being the official position of the government. Your position is that i, and everyone else in the nation, are free to practice your religion in the manner proscribed by you from whatever angle it is legislated.

While i had heard this from the radical right, i am surprised and saddened to find it true.

i guess you are correct— in your eyes i am a religious radical for thinking faith and government should be separate; arrogant to consider my beliefs hold any relevance in the brilliant light of yours.

Thank you for explaining your view. i disagree but respect your right to them.

jo

Would not the “Fairtax” bill do a lot to remove marriage from the state? I haven’t read the bill recently, but as I remember it would replace income tax with a national sales tax. With no income tax there would be no advantage to the state being involved with marriage whether it is straight or gay.

tomd,

i don’t know enough about the “Fairtax” bill, but just the name makes me suspicious. i am not a traveller, but i think such a tax would only encourage the rich to buy from overseas and so send more money out of the country and our economy.

And there are other beneifts the states gives beyond taxation. There is the hospital visitation and health care to consider. None of this should be tied in anyway to a religious function. Straights and gays alike should have to either have a civil ceremony or fill out the extra governmental forms themselves rather than having the clergy involved in it.

google search “This fish stinks from the head down” 119,000 results. Add the word bush to the search 52,600 results, make it the more restrictive President Bush, 45,700 results. Either liberals are none too creative or a flock of parrots.

Try coming up with policies and writing laws that show what you want to do with the American people’s tax money in the event you regain control. The best way to politic is not to say “that guy sucks” but “that guy sucks because he stopped ______”. BUT you have to make sure “____” is something the majority of Americans WANT. Therein lies the problem. The majority of Americans are not liberal, but a lot of the “rallying points” of the Democratic party are liberal. To move to the center doesn’t work because then Republicans vote to support it too. FL. Senator Bill Nelson (D)is up for re-election and started some minor legislation concerning emminent domain seized property given to private interests, an issue the majority of Americans agree on. FL. Senator Mel Martinez (R) jumed on board, thus nullifying any gain by Nelson by illustrating no matter which party you vote for in 2006, the issue will be resolved.

So the Democrats are just left with “that guy sucks” and “they give tax cuts to the rich”. They’re good at it though, and eventually they’ll get enough angry people registered to vote (always ANGRY people democrats want to vote, felons, angst ridden eighteen year olds, people angry at their economic condition who wish to remain blameless. You know pretty much the blame someone else crowd) and they’ll take a national election, maybe even the senate, and two years later the nation will sober up and at least get the House back in order.

Sorry wrong comment group for my above post could moderator please strike to avoid confusion. thank you