Yes, Conservatives ARE the compassonate ones

[KirkOntario]

Great column this week by George Will. Let's all give conservatives a round of applause. We all agree that charity is a good thing don't we?

"Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush."


Now let's look at just how charitable this 'new' politician Obama is.....Not very generous at all according to the tax returns he recently released....

http://friendsofatr.blogspot.com/2008/03/barack-obama-just-call-me-ebenezer.html

"Below is the percentage of the Obama's adjusted gross income that went to charity for each year (and this even includes Rev. Wright's church-o-hate):

2006: 6.1%
2005: 4.7%
2004: 1.2%
2003: 1.4%
2002: 0.4%
2001: 0.5%
2000: 0.9%"

Now, let's look at Dick Cheney.....
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/4/15/02358.shtml?s=ic

"In one of the largest sums ever donated to charity by a U.S. public official, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne gave away nearly $7 million last year to help the poor and to medical research.

The Cheneys gave more than three-quarters of their income - $6,869,655 - to several charities, including George Washington University's Cardiothoracic Institute and a charity for low-income high school students in the Washington, D.C. area, Capital Partners for Education."

Thank goodness for Haliburton.

[MoonShadow]

Kirk, compassion doesn't come dressed under lables of conservatives or liberals. It comes from people who truly are compassionate.

May I ask just where you plan to go with this thread?

[KirkOntario]

I'd ask Democrats to step up to the plate and be as compassionate as conservatives are. Healthy rivarly is what America is all about.

[MoonShadow]

I'd ask Democrats to step up to the plate and be as compassionate as conservatives are. Healthy rivarly is what America is all about.


This doesn't make sense. Many democrats are conservatives.

[usmc1]

Kirk, compassion doesn't come dressed under lables of conservatives or liberals. It comes from people who truly are compassionate.

May I ask just where you plan to go with this thread?

The fact that one has to create a thread to draw attention to an arch-conservative, reactionary columnist writing about conservatives efforts at charity rather proves the point that conservatives are not known for compassion or charity. If they were, one wouldn't have to draw attention to the single instance, now would one?

Sort of a dog bites man story, I should say.

[KirkOntario]

He didn't write about a single conservative's charitable act he wrote about statistics relating to conservatives versus liberals as a whole and how it is influenced by their politcal points of view.

From the article....

"In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word. "

[usmc1]

War is Peace!
Hate is Love!
Conservatives are Generous & Compassionate!
:laugh::eek::rolleyes::Dshocked:sneaky::surprised: ;)

[KirkOntario]

Can you give the statistics to prove otherwise?

[Skinview]

This doesn't make sense. Many democrats are conservatives.As a relative term, in comparison to other Democrats. Real conservatives are pretty much a subset of Republicans. But conservatives come in different flavors, to add to the confusion.

[Skinview]

The fact that one has to create a thread to draw attention to an arch-conservative, reactionary columnist writing about conservatives efforts at charity rather proves the point that conservatives are not known for compassion or charity. If they were, one wouldn't have to draw attention to the single instance, now would one?

Sort of a dog bites man story, I should say.I'd say it shows that the liberal spin is false.

[Boreas]

I'd say it shows that the liberal spin is false.

So does that make the conservative spin true??? :confused:

[Boreas]

Kirk, compassion doesn't come dressed under lables of conservatives or liberals. It comes from people who truly are compassionate.

May I ask just where you plan to go with this thread?

Good question!

I would also add that Democrats are still pretty conservative by Canadian standards. Also, compassion is not necessarily measured in dollars and cents. It involves some sense and elbow grease. What are people actually DOING that would be considered compassionate.

My experience with conservative policies has been anything but compassionate. I cite Mike Harris (Kirk's hero, I know) and Gordon Campbell. Harris is the former premiere of Ontario and Campbell is the current premiere of BC. I am inclined to think that Campbell shows more signs of hope than Harris ever did.

[KirkOntario]

Mike Harris inherited a province managed by Canada's socialist party, the New Democrats. The NDP was running 10 billion dollar deficits annually, raising taxes, driving away jobs and they raised welfare rates which helped to swell welfare rolls to over a million people by 1995. Mike Harris cut taxes, created an economic boom, cut welfare rolls by 500,000, reduced unemployment and reformed welfare to get Ontarians working again.

Today, the province of Ontario is in the hands of the leftleaning liberals. Business is being driven away by the high taxes (the highest in Canada) and we've had the loss of 200,000 highpaying manufacturing jobs. Government spending is up.

I'll take Mike Harris over the Liberals or NDP any day!


http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=402194

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080324.wflaherty0324/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail

[Boreas]

Yes Kirk, I knew you'd say something like that.

[KirkOntario]

As a great American president said: "Facts are stubborn things."

[Boreas]

As a great American president said: "Facts are stubborn things."

Well, I suspect you have a different version of "facts" than I do. I also saw things from a different angle. Not the one of a white male, priveleged lawyer....and NO that is NOT envy.

[Dail17]

Hey KirkOntario, i thought your post was pretty interesting. I'm not as much supprised that Cheney gave so much as I am that Obama gave so little. Go figure...

[KirkOntario]

Well, I suspect you have a different version of "facts" than I do. I also saw things from a different angle. Not the one of a white male, priveleged lawyer....and NO that is NOT envy.

Yes, you're right. I did have a unique perspective. I had clients I acted for on legal aid matters who were on welfare that ended up transitioning to meaningful work. I had one lady who called me EVERY single day to complaiin about her ex-husband. That was on the taxpayer's tab. You paid for it. When Harris cut welfare and reformed it, so she could top up her benefits, she got a job.

It was a minimum wage job in doughnut shop but it must have beaten the 'dignity' of bloated NDP welfare benefits because she stopped calling. She had something else in her life than to sit at home and resent her ex-husband. Two years later I ran into her one evening in a local college where I was teaching part-time. She was now taking night-school and chatted excitedly about the new career path she was embarking on as a geriatric nurse. Mike Harris was paying for her to go back to school and retrain. I had others who were similarly affected.

Many of those who objected to Mike Harris had vested interests, those who were part of the 'poverty industry' who earned their living and were dependant on the existence of a large underclass --social workers, unions, bureaucrats etc.

[usmc1]

I'd say it shows that the liberal spin is false.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to edify us with precisely what "liberal spin"
it is to which you refer.

[Sanslines]

Yes, you're right. I did have a unique perspective. I had clients I acted for on legal aid matters who were on welfare that ended up transitioning to meaningful work. I had one lady who called me EVERY single day to complaiin about her ex-husband. That was on the taxpayer's tab. You paid for it. When Harris cut welfare and reformed it, so she could top up her benefits, she got a job.

It was a minimum wage job in doughnut shop but it must have beaten the 'dignity' of bloated NDP welfare benefits because she stopped calling. She had something else in her life than to sit at home and resent her ex-husband. Two years later I ran into her one evening in a local college where I was teaching part-time. She was now taking night-school and chatted excitedly about the new career path she was embarking on as a geriatric nurse. Mike Harris was paying for her to go back to school and retrain. I had others who were similarly affected.

Many of those who objected to Mike Harris had vested interests, those who were part of the 'poverty industry' who earned their living and were dependant on the existence of a large underclass --social workers, unions, bureaucrats etc.

Kirk,

What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that some percentage of people on public assistance programs are acutally fully able to work and to provide for themselves but chose not to do so because of a welfare system that encourages them to stay home and wait for their checks to arrive? Are you saying that the percentage of truly needy are much smaller that actually is and that a better way to be compassionate towards many on welfare is to assist them in returning to some form of productive work rather then staying home and collecting from the system? Are you saying that governments are actually encouraging this kind of system in order to control people and have people beholding to them for the checks that they send out?

[MoonShadow]

You know, it gets tiring hearing people talk about the "poverty industry", those on welfare programs who are abled bodied and able to get jobs, etc, etc, etc. Have any of YOU actually seen what the truly needy are? Have you ever walked in their shoes for even one day? You will be surprised.

I am not talking about those who use and abuse the system. I am talking about those for which the system helps. Elderly with disabilities, younger adults with disabilities, single parent homes with the working parent still working minimum wage jobsw but also receive public assistance. These are the people for which the system helps.

Each time the "system" is changed to eliminate people off the rolls, it hurts those who need it the most. To change the system you need to eliminate those who do not need it or abuse it such as families who have two incomes of substantial amounts and who will also get public assistance because they have a child borned with a disability, or the plain lazy.

However, when the "system" is changed it is not well thought out and the end result is that those who do need it are not able to have it.

[MoonShadow]

When people like the Cheney's "give so much", I take it with a grain of salt. Of course, they will give and not necessarily because they are "compassionate" but that such "giving" will appear and be perceived that they are. Look at the man overall, look at what he is as a leader.

[Boreas]

You know, it gets tiring hearing people talk about the "poverty industry", those on welfare programs who are abled bodied and able to get jobs, etc, etc, etc. Have any of YOU actually seen what the truly needy are? Have you ever walked in their shoes for even one day? You will be surprised.

I am not talking about those who use and abuse the system. I am talking about those for which the system helps. Elderly with disabilities, younger adults with disabilities, single parent homes with the working parent still working minimum wage jobsw but also receive public assistance. These are the people for which the system helps.

Each time the "system" is changed to eliminate people off the rolls, it hurts those who need the most. To change the system you need to eliminate those who do not need it or abuse it such as families who have two incomes of substantial amounts and who will also get public assistance because they have a child borned with a disability, or the plain lazy.

However, when the "system" is changed it is not well thought out and the end result is that those who do need it hurt even more.

Thank you so much for your post MoonShadow. Of course some people went on to get meaningful work when Harris did his "Common Sense Revolution". Unfortunately, many people ended up on the street, or unable to get appropriate addictions related treatment or support, or ended up with more severe mental health symptoms because they lost their supports. The fact is that there ARE some people who will always need "welfare" or social support. All folks on social assistance are not abusing the system.

Kirk mentioned legal aid as a program that we tax payers pay for. I am happy to pay for that. Since legal aid has been cut so drastically there have been many people, usually women, who now cannot afford a lawyer for a legitimate concern.

It does not have to be a case of dependence creating programs vs nothing. I do not think there is very much space for so called dependence creating programs. That is disrespectful of those who need support. Very good programs that help give a hand up to people have been lost with neoliberal approaches. These can be subsidized housing, some legal aid, supportive day programs for people with mental health problems, supports for single parents etc. Many good programs do help people get off "welfare" and into more productive ways of living. Cutting people off totally can ironically create more helplessness.

Mike Harris cut programs for abused women as one of his first actions. When he went for his second term, it was discovered that his wife had required the use of a women's shelter before he was elected the first time.

The current Ontario government is now trying to fix messes that Harris and his cronies created. They did have quite the deficit that they created. Harris supposedly had a balanced budget at one point.....that was because he was able to sell a highway and top up the coffers.

[MoonShadow]

Kirk mentioned legal aid as a program that we tax payers pay for. I am happy to pay for that. Since legal aid has been cut so drastically there have been many people, usually women, who now cannot afford a lawyer for a legitimate concern.


Mike Harris cut programs for abused women as one of his first actions. When he went for his second term, it was discovered that his wife had required the use of a women's shelter before he was elected the first time.




Why am I not surprised to hear this.

Yes, I am happy to be able to pay for legal aid also. Such a program truly helps.

It is tragic to think a lawmaker (or anyone for that matter) would cut programs for abuse (women, children, elderly, whoever). That clearly shows what type of person that Harris is. And he got to be PM? Amazing how ignorant voters are.

[Boreas]

It is tragic to think a lawmaker (or anyone for that matter) would cut programs for abuse (women, children, elderly, whoever). That clearly shows what type of person that Harris is. And he got to be PM? Amazing how ignorant voters are.

No, thankfully he was not PM. He was Premiere of Ontario from 1995 until 2002. He has since been in trouble for a stand off with First Nations' people in Ipperwash, Ontario that resulted in the death of a protester. Here are a few links.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0010039

http://www.socialwork.utoronto.ca/fsw/fswsupport/sane/doc/herd_rhetoric.pdf
http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/mikeharris_walkertonwater.html

I met a woman who used to be a head server at a convention centre in Toronto. Apparently our honourable premiere had to be told to lay off the young female servers. I understand he was quite drunk and obnoxious. He was a former golf pro and the perception was that he had spent much time at the 19th hole. Of course, this is all conjecture and not necesarily fact. :sneaky:<!-- / message -->

[BinCo]

With the people that I know, who fall all over the spectrum, this is what I usually see.

For Republicans that primary path to charity is thru their church. Some take time to help the poor, some give money. All give money to push their religion upon third world peoples who did not ask to be converted. I usually see some sort of chain attached to their charity.

For Democrats that primary path is to give their time. Some give time at soup kitchens, some give money to various organizations to help the poor. Some give time to assist in the public domain cleaning up trails and bring poor kids into the mountains to learn. I know of none that tie their religious beliefs to their charity.

Of course, this is very unscientific as it's only amongst the folks I know. The most libertarian self righteous Christian jerk I know goes to build homes for Habitat for Humanity all over the world. So who really knows.

The one real truth is that none of them beat their own drum about how great they are to give.:)

KirkOntario, as much as you think that Mr. Chaney is infallible, history will show that this administration did more to damage the United States in every way, shape, and form than any other in history.

[BinCo]

To change the system you need to eliminate those who do not need it or abuse it such as families who have two incomes of substantial amounts and who will also get public assistance because they have a child borned with a disability, or the plain lazy.

However, when the "system" is changed it is not well thought out and the end result is that those who do need it are not able to have it.

Moonshadow: How would you fix the system? Would you expect the couple that went to college, got great careers, saved their money, waited to have children until they could afford them and then had a baby that required millions in medical bills to go into backruptcy and be destitute before any public benefit would kick in? We hear stories in the news about couples who have to get divorced after such a medical bill because that is the only way that the wife with a disabled child can get into any sort of care. This always seems to happen long after their medical insurance is drained, as is their life savings. They have taken the 45% tax hit for cashing out their 401K or IRA and spent it all. On the other hand we also have the anti-tax "conservatives" who do not want to help these people out, while standing in the way of letting a women get an abortion early on in the pregnancy when some of these medical issues are found out.:eek:

So I have to ask again. Would you expect the couple to be destitute and living in a Winnebago before they get any assistance? Where should the line be drawn? There is no easy answer.

[MoonShadow]

So I have to ask again. Would you expect the couple to be destitute and living in a Winnebago before they get any assistance? Where should the line be drawn? There is no easy answer.


First, BinCo, I am not talking about medical care. Your example is not a good one when talking about the welfare system. I am talking about the truly needy; not affluent individuals who hit hard times. That's another discussion altogether.


First step in fixing any system is to break it down, dissect it and see what has been working and improve upon that. Not an easy task, I know. The next HUGE step is to stop the abuse and fraud. This latter one is in and of itself a massive undertaking.

[MoonShadow]

So I have to ask again. Would you expect the couple to be destitute and living in a Winnebago before they get any assistance? Where should the line be drawn? There is no easy answer.


Living in a Winnebago is upscale living to what the truly needy live in. Again, your comparison is not good. The more affluent have access to bankruptcy laws, credit counseling entities that the poor do not.

You are right, there is no EASY answer but there are answers if investigated, researched, drafted, and acted upon but no one is doing this.

[BinCo]

First, BinCo, I am not talking about medical care. Your example is not a good one when talking about the welfare system. I am talking about the truly needy; not affluent individuals who hit hard times. That's another discussion altogether.

Agreed, Another discussion for another day. This thread is about compassion. Which I can't help but notice is not being used in conjunction with "conservative" in this political year. Maybe that should tell all of us something.


First step in fixing any system is to break it down, dissect it and see what has been working and improve upon that. Not an easy task, I know. The next HUGE step is to stop the abuse and fraud. This latter one is in and of itself a massive undertaking.

I think it's also an impossible one, as each case would have to be treated individually and we don't have enough government employees to do that.

[PascoDoug]

With the people that I know, who fall all over the spectrum, this is
Of course, this is very unscientific as it's only amongst the folks I know. The most libertarian self righteous Christian jerk I know goes to build homes for Habitat for Humanity all over the world. So who really knows.

The one real truth is that none of them beat their own drum about how great they are to give.:)

Which is perhaps why Democrats/liberals "seem" to be less charitable in these polls - maybe there's just more of them who are less likely to brag about it or report it. If I'm not mistaken, that's how Jesus said that charity should be handled - anonymously and without boasting about it. ;)

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-Ghandi

[Qikdraw]

The other thing to look at is deeds. If conservatives are so much more charitable, then why are republican politicians gutting almost every program that helps the needy? A sign that a program is going to get cuts is when Bush comes out and speaks abut how important it is.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

KirkOntario, as much as you think that Mr. Chaney is infallible, history will show that this administration did more to damage the United States in every way, shape, and form than any other in history.

Can you provide the quote in which I said Cheney was 'infallible?' I merely answered the false allegation that he was a war profiteer when the poster who made that allegation could not back up her assertions.

[KirkOntario]

The other thing to look at is deeds. If conservatives are so much more charitable, then why are republican politicians gutting almost every program that helps the needy? A sign that a program is going to get cuts is when Bush comes out and speaks abut how important it is.

Qikdraw

Perhaps because they are generous with their own money and not other people's money the way Democrats are.

[usmc1]

Can you provide the quote in which I said Cheney was 'infallible.' I merely answered the false allegation that he was a war profiteer when the poster who made that allegation could not back up her assertions.

Oh that has been proven. Several times over. Anyway, "We've moved on from that".

Cheney was determined to be a Big Fat Liar and War Profiteer by acclamation. You're out of order.

Qikdraw, we need a new Sergeant at arms, since Nacktman has been sent to coventry. How about it? A solid ash Louisville Slugger comes with the position.

[KirkOntario]

Were you more persuasive you wouldn't be in need of a baseball bat or numbers.

[Boreas]

The other thing to look at is deeds. If conservatives are so much more charitable, then why are republican politicians gutting almost every program that helps the needy? A sign that a program is going to get cuts is when Bush comes out and speaks abut how important it is.

Qikdraw


Amen! :applause:

[usmc1]

Were you more peruasive you wouldn't be in need of a baseball bat or numbers.

Well since truth was on our side, the vote by acclamation carried. The ball-bat is only for those who are dumber than a shoe-box full of finger-nail clippings who might challenge the sergeant at arms.

You're bright enough not to do that, right?

[KirkOntario]

Why am I not surprised to hear this.

Yes, I am happy to be able to pay for legal aid also. Such a program truly helps.

It is tragic to think a lawmaker (or anyone for that matter) would cut programs for abuse (women, children, elderly, whoever). That clearly shows what type of person that Harris is. And he got to be PM? Amazing how ignorant voters are.

Frankly I'm shocked. I would have thought that one opposed to the government spending trillions on an 'endless war' would support cutting social programs that don't work.

After 40 years of the 'war on poverty' (say is there an 'exit strategy for this war?) with no end in sight and little tangible benefit you'd think it's time to stop meddling without result?

[MoonShadow]

First of all, there has never been any real war on poverty. It is laughable to think there ever was one; the same as there has never been any war on drugs. Only feeble attempts were made with expensive on-air advertising is about all it amounted to. If there were a real war on either poverty or drugs, we would not be dealing with the poverty we still have or the drugs rolling into our countries.

Legal aid works, Kirk. I have many years experience working with Legal Aid and its recepients and it works. Maybe it doesn't work where you are but where I am it does. It is a program that does work.

Social programs are needed and yes, some have a lot of work to be done to iron out the inefficiencies but we cannot on behalf of those who need them eliminate them. That's insanity.

On topic - you have compassionate people in all walks of life. All this who is the better party is bunk. Conservatives versus Liberals, Democrats versus Republicans, name your blank verus blank. More bunk. In the bigger scheme of things, it doesn't matter one whit what party you belong to or whether you are liberal, conservative, or wherever you sit on a "political label". Compassionate people cross the spectrum.

[KirkOntario]

First of all, there has never been any real war on poverty. It is laughable to think there ever was one; the same as there has never been any war on drugs. Only feeble attempts were made with expensive on-air advertising is about all it amounted to. If there were a real war on either poverty or drugs, we would not be dealing with the poverty we still have or the drugs rolling into our countries.

Legal aid works, Kirk. I have many years experience working with Legal Aid and its recepients and it works. Maybe it doesn't work where you are but where I am it does. It is a program that does work.




If you go back and read my post, there was no criticism of legal aid but welfare ---though the interesting thing about legal aid was when they had to cut funding the money earned by immigration lawyers actualy increased: it seems refugee claimants could come up with the higher private retainer after all (they were working illegally while their dubious claims ground through the system towards dismissal).

[usmc1]

If you go back and read my post, there was no criticism of legal aid but welfare ---though the interesting thing about legal aid was when they had to cut funding the money earned by immigration lawyers actualy increased: it seems refugee claimants could come up with the higher private retainer after all (they were working illegally while their dubious claims ground through the system towards dismissal).

Quick poll, who believes or cares?

[Boreas]

Quick poll, who believes or cares?

Not me. :rolleyes:

[Midwest Buck]

[/QUOTE] KirkOntario, as much as you think that Mr. Chaney is infallible, history will show that this administration did more to damage the United States in every way, shape, and form than any other in history.[/QUOTE]

I guess that's why gas prices, unemployment and inflation were all lower before the Democrates took control of Congress. Things really went to hell since then.

It is a fact that States that generally vote Republican give more of their income to charities than States that generally vote Democrate.

I get a kick out of how some on this board cannot back their statements with facts. As soon as someone challenges them, they have to speak some kind of rhetoric and talking points of the political party they favor.

[Qikdraw]

I guess that's why gas prices, unemployment and inflation were all lower before the Democrates took control of Congress. Things really went to hell since then.

So its all the democrats fault? :rofl: The democrats who have only been in control of both houses with a very small majority since 2006? They do not have enough of a majority to push through bills that they have wanted. Bush threatens vetos and has actually vetoed stuff put forward by democrats.

This economy was ruined when all branches of government were controled by republicans. Gas prices had already doubled and more, and so had unemployment and inflation.

I get a kick out of how some on this board cannot back their statements with facts. As soon as someone challenges them, they have to speak some kind of rhetoric and talking points of the political party they favor.

You know I get a kick out of the same stuff. :D

Qikdraw

[Croydon]

Yes Kirk, I knew you'd say something like that.
I too wasn't surprise by what he said.

Although Canadian, Kirk reminds me of rednecks in deep south. You know, the ones who complain and lament all day that they can't find a job. They think the Mexicans are taking all their jobs or the blacks are taking the good jobs because of affirmative action. They complain they can't get ahead in life because of all these barriers but the reality is that they are uneducated (no diploma or degree), and really haven't done much to get ahead in life. At the age of 32, still living at home with their chain smoking obese mother who parks her big butt in front of the TV all day. Their day is spent doing NOTHING yet they have time to complain that they can't do what they want because everyone is taking their spot

[usmc1]

I too wasn't surprise by what he said.

Although Canadian, Kirk reminds me of rednecks in deep south. You know, the ones who complain and lament all day that they can't find a job. They think the Mexicans are taking all their jobs or the blacks are taking the good jobs because of affirmative action. They complain they can't get ahead in life because of all these barriers but the reality is that they are uneducated (no diploma or degree), and really haven't done much to get ahead in life. At the age of 32, still living at home with their chain smoking obese mother who parks her big butt in front of the TV all day. Their day is spent doing NOTHING yet they have time to complain that they can't do what they want because everyone is taking theirp spot

Damn man, you left off the deep-fryers, squirrel huntin', fishin', beer-drinkin', pickem-up trucks, double-wides and visitin' mom in jail from your stereotype.

Those folks ain't jest down chere doncha know. Aw spit, boy, yew kin find them up yonder in New York state too. Especially upstate!

Some of us Southern boys even know who our daddy's is. We visit him in prison come big holidays and all!

[usmc1]

KirkOntario, as much as you think that Mr. Chaney is infallible, history will show that this administration did more to damage the United States in every way, shape, and form than any other in history.

I guess that's why gas prices, unemployment and inflation were all lower before the Democrates took control of Congress. Things really went to hell since then.

It is a fact that States that generally vote Republican give more of their income to charities than States that generally vote Democrate.

I get a kick out of how some on this board cannot back their statements with facts. As soon as someone challenges them, they have to speak some kind of rhetoric and talking points of the political party they favor.

We're here for your amusement pal. Seems fair, since you've put up something hilariously wrong.

[Sanslines]

[quote=usmc1;189929]
Those folks ain't jest down chere doncha know. Aw spit, boy, yew kin find them up yonder in New York state too. Especially upstate!quote]

Yuppers! The fewer and fewer of us who are left to actually work carry the enormous burden of ever increasing taxes to pay for all of the mess too! Contrast New York State with Pennsylvania. New York State has roughly a $128 BILLION budget versus PA's $28 Billion. Instead of getting spending under control, New York State (ONCE AGAIN!) at the state level has increased spending (DUE TO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS THAT NEITHER REPUBS OR DEMS WILL STAND UP TO) by mandating special programs without funding them. The mandates are forced on the counties that must do the dirty work by increasing property taxes again! New York State has the dubious honor of being the most generous welfare state in the nation along with the highest taxes too. Out of a population of roughly 19,000,000 over 3,500,000 receive medicare alone. That's 18 percent or roughly 1 out or 5 people.

A few conclusions can be made concerning New York State.

1) To those who are proposing either a welfare state or a socialist state, there is indeed a limit as to how much of a tax burden people are willing to carry. The decreasing population of able bodied working people are testiment to that as they move to other states where they do have a better chance of a future.

2) It is proven that neither Democrats or Republicans will stand up to special interest groups.

3) The goal of any program should be to assist and encourage those able bodied to become productive members of society throught education and employment opportunities so that they can provide for themselves. This is the kind of assistance that is so badly needed.

[G I Joe]

I too wasn't surprise by what he said.

Although Canadian, Kirk reminds me of rednecks in deep south. You know, the ones who complain and lament all day that they can't find a job. They think the Mexicans are taking all their jobs or the blacks are taking the good jobs because of affirmative action. They complain they can't get ahead in life because of all these barriers but the reality is that they are uneducated (no diploma or degree), and really haven't done much to get ahead in life. At the age of 32, still living at home with their chain smoking obese mother who parks her big butt in front of the TV all day. Their day is spent doing NOTHING yet they have time to complain that they can't do what they want because everyone is taking their spot

Unfortunately, these kind of people are found all over this great country, not only in the deep South. Laziness and stupidity know no particular region.

[KirkOntario]

I too wasn't surprise by what he said.

Although Canadian, Kirk reminds me of rednecks in deep south. You know, the ones who complain and lament all day that they can't find a job. They think the Mexicans are taking all their jobs or the blacks are taking the good jobs because of affirmative action. They complain they can't get ahead in life because of all these barriers but the reality is that they are uneducated (no diploma or degree), and really haven't done much to get ahead in life. At the age of 32, still living at home with their chain smoking obese mother who parks her big butt in front of the TV all day. Their day is spent doing NOTHING yet they have time to complain that they can't do what they want because everyone is taking their spot

Sorry but I discussed none of those topics nor does any of that relate to my circumstances. Please stick to the topic at hand and stay away from personalizing this discussion as this approach usually ends with a rapid descent of the tone of the discussion.

[Boreas]

I get a kick out of how some on this board cannot back their statements with facts. As soon as someone challenges them, they have to speak some kind of rhetoric and talking points of the political party they favor.

Like the guy you were responding to?<!-- / message -->

[Boreas]

A few conclusions can be made concerning New York State.

1) To those who are proposing either a welfare state or a socialist state, there is indeed a limit as to how much of a tax burden people are willing to carry. The decreasing population of able bodied working people are testiment to that as they move to other states where they do have a better chance of a future.

But your government has created a MUCH bigger tax burden on the citizens by going into this false war. Spending unbelievable amounts on war machinery is okay, spending a fraction of that to help folks become productive citizens is not?


2) It is proven that neither Democrats or Republicans will stand up to special interest groups.

Oh, I am sure they do. They will no doubt stand up to the interests of the groups that interest them. For an example, in Ontario ten years ago, the Harris government criticized anyone supporting social safety net things as being "special interest groups". The Bay Street Lawyers and their ilk were not considered special interest groups. All groups were special interest.....it just depends upon whose interests interest you.

3) The goal of any program should be to assist and encourage those able bodied to become productive members of society throught education and employment opportunities so that they can provide for themselves. This is the kind of assistance that is so badly needed

Yes, and these are the types of programs I have seen cut in neoliberal ideologies. Additionally, there will ALWAYS be people who are unable to become productive for whatever reason. These reasons are not usually due to laziness, but to things like illness, mental illness, etc. When there are things like adequate mental health supports, some people can become more productive than dependent.

[KirkOntario]

Oh, I am sure they do. They will no doubt stand up to the interests of the groups that interest them. For an example, in Ontario ten years ago, the Harris government criticized anyone supporting social safety net things as being "special interest groups". The Bay Street Lawyers and their ilk were not considered special interest groups. All groups were special interest.....it just depends upon whose interests interest you.


Please name a specific policy implemented by the Mike Harris government aimed at benefiting 'Bay Street lawyers.' I'm curious to know.

[Boreas]

The Harris government seemed to welcome the input of "Bay Street Lawyers" and any other business interest. We saw attempts to push through things like the Omnibus Bill that would have made all health and social services subject to the whims of the government. Employees would have been pawns to contracting out and other "cost cutting" measures.

Any input that served the neo-liberal ideology was welcomed. Any input that served or supported the weaker members of society and those who served them was seen as "bleeding heart" and suspect.

[Boreas]

social programs that don't work.

This is right-winged rhetoric. Please substantiate.

[KirkOntario]

The Harris government seemed to welcome the input of "Bay Street Lawyers" and any other business interest. We saw attempts to push through things like the Omnibus Bill that would have made all health and social services subject to the whims of the government. Employees would have been pawns to contracting out and other "cost cutting" measures.


Please explain what changes to health care have to do with the interests of Bay Street lawyers. Your initial allegation was that "Bay Street lawyers" as a special interest group were being assisted by the Harris government. Changes to health care have nothing do with Bay Street lawyers but had everything to do with those dependent on government funding, nurses unions, and social workers. Not listening to these self-interested and often unionized groups doesn't mean Harris provided special benefits to Bay Street lawyers.

[Sanslines]

But your government has created a MUCH bigger tax burden on the citizens by going into this false war. Spending unbelievable amounts on war machinery is okay, spending a fraction of that to help folks become productive citizens is not?

The issue is more complicated then just spending. If spending was the only answer, then we would have spent ourselves out of many problems a very long time ago. The amount of money spent on K-12 education is staggering and has increased at an enormous pace. Perhaps the problem with education is not the amout of money necessarily spent on education, but how it is spent. There is enormous waste spent on frivolous nonsense while very important needs go unmet. New York State spends fnatastic sums of money on social programs with increases year after year. Yet, the problems get worse. There are many dedicated politicians from both parties who work diligently to resolve problems in New York State. Yet the special interest groups still have access to the power brokers and those power brokers are the ones who can block practical and successful solutions to problems in order to protect special interests.




Oh, I am sure they do. They will no doubt stand up to the interests of the groups that interest them. For an example, in Ontario ten years ago, the Harris government criticized anyone supporting social safety net things as being "special interest groups". The Bay Street Lawyers and their ilk were not considered special interest groups. All groups were special interest.....it just depends upon whose interests interest you.

For an interesting read about a politican who is actually making a difference, you should read about Cory Booker (Dem) who is the Mayor of Newark NJ. Mayor Booker is a grass roots activist who is very down to earth, high energy, and has practical solutions to some rather serious problems that have faced Newark. His basic philosophy is that it is up to the people themselves to work for change and to create the kind of communities that they wish. People need to stop demanding that others, including the government do everything for them and provide everything for them and start getting involved in their own communities and contributing to building their communities instead of either destroying them or watching in total apathy as others destroy their communities.

http://www.ci.newark.nj.us/government/mayor_booker/


Yes, and these are the types of programs I have seen cut in neoliberal ideologies. Additionally, there will ALWAYS be people who are unable to become productive for whatever reason. These reasons are not usually due to laziness, but to things like illness, mental illness, etc. When there are things like adequate mental health supports, some people can become more productive than dependent.

I think that, by far, most people are compassionate and caring enough to want to help the truly needy. I am surrounded by such people. However, the situation today is very complicated for in order to give capable people hope for a better future, you need to create a path for them such as meaningful job opportunities and then get out of their way so that they can help themselves.

Case in point concerning the physically handicapped. There is a program around here that provides basic needed assistance for handicapped to come to a facility to work. The basic assistance may include something as simple as a wheelchair ramp modified van to help bring some to work. Once at work, these (so called) handicapped individuals work very hard and feel very happy to be able to come to work and contribute to society. They would feel useless and depressed if they did not have this opportunity and had to stay at home alone and isolated awaiting their public assistance checks. These individuals amaze and motivate me for even though some might be missing limbs or have other physical or mental handicaps, they are truly dedicated to overcoming and doing the best that they can within their limitations. If you were to speak with such individuals, you would never even know that they are handicapped. They speak volumes about what human potential is all about regardless of limitations.

[usmc1]

Sorry but I discussed none of those topics nor does any of that relate to my circumstances. Please stick to the topic at hand and stay away from personalizing this discussion as this approach usually ends with a rapid descent of the tone of the discussion.

You're not the moderator, thankfully. Give it up! No one cares or takes seriously your holier than thou tone.

[Boreas]

The issue is more complicated then just spending. If spending was the only answer, then we would have spent ourselves out of many problems a very long time ago. The amount of money spent on K-12 education is staggering and has increased at an enormous pace. Perhaps the problem with education is not the amout of money necessarily spent on education, but how it is spent. There is enormous waste spent on frivolous nonsense while very important needs go unmet. New York State spends fnatastic sums of money on social programs with increases year after year. Yet, the problems get worse. There are many dedicated politicians from both parties who work diligently to resolve problems in New York State. Yet the special interest groups still have access to the power brokers and those power brokers are the ones who can block practical and successful solutions to problems in order to protect special interests.

I agree. That is why it bothers me so much when the right-wing ideologues of today just slash and burn everything. It is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Saying that all social programs do not work is not true. Some do work. We need to find out what works and do more of that. Ideologues on either side are counterproductive.

For an interesting read about a politican who is actually making a difference, you should read about Cory Booker (Dem) who is the Mayor of Newark NJ. Mayor Booker is a grass roots activist who is very down to earth, high energy, and has practical solutions to some rather serious problems that have faced Newark. His basic philosophy is that it is up to the people themselves to work for change and to create the kind of communities that they wish. People need to stop demanding that others, including the government do everything for them and provide everything for them and start getting involved in their own communities and contributing to building their communities instead of either destroying them or watching in total apathy as others destroy their communities.

I will check this out. It sounds interesting. Social programs should help people get on their feet. It is not enough to tell people to stand up. The fact is, some will need help. Funding projects and letting those in the community in need decide what they need can be very effective. The grass-roots know what the grass needs far better than the bigwigs in the sky.

I think that, by far, most people are compassionate and caring enough to want to help the truly needy. I am surrounded by such people. However, the situation today is very complicated for in order to give capable people hope for a better future, you need to create a path for them such as meaningful job opportunities and then get out of their way so that they can help themselves.

Case in point concerning the physically handicapped. There is a program around here that provides basic needed assistance for handicapped to come to a facility to work. The basic assistance may include something as simple as a wheelchair ramp modified van to help bring some to work. Once at work, these (so called) handicapped individuals work very hard and feel very happy to be able to come to work and contribute to society. They would feel useless and depressed if they did not have this opportunity and had to stay at home alone and isolated awaiting their public assistance checks. These individuals amaze and motivate me for even though some might be missing limbs or have other physical or mental handicaps, they are truly dedicated to overcoming and doing the best that they can within their limitations. If you were to speak with such individuals, you would never even know that they are handicapped. They speak volumes about what human potential is all about regardless of limitations.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

I so agree. Sometimes the simple solution is a ramp or the equivalent. At one time it was scandalous to be putting ramps in sidewalks. People would say that there weren't enough people in wheelchairs to warrant the cost. They ended up putting them in anyway. These ramps helped people with strollers and others. They had a bigger positive effect than what was initially planned.

There are many ways to be the ramp or provide the ramp. Some jurisdictions mandate that a percentage of rental housing be geared to income. That way people on assistance can live in a proper place at a minimal expense to themselves and the state. When they get a proper place to live, they can be more productive.

My comment about spending money on the war was related to the current spin. We were told that this was a war on terrorism (I notice that rhetoric is quieter now) and that if you weren't for us, you were against us. Talk about polarising language! Another spin is that social programs don't work and that they are a waste of money........social workers are dependent on government spending etc. This is just spin and justifies cuts that are not acceptable to many. When you build fear based on spin you can push through things that might not be acceptable otherwise. Now it is fashionable to spend money on war related activities and not on the "welfare state". There is no way that a social saftey net costs as much as the war.

I'd like to see the grassroots be able to have more of a voice. It is happening in some places. If we can fertilize the roots we'll have a better lawn! :D

[Boreas]

Please explain what changes to health care have to do with the interests of Bay Street lawyers. Your initial allegation was that "Bay Street lawyers" as a special interest group were being assisted by the Harris government. Changes to health care have nothing do with Bay Street lawyers but had everything to do with those dependent on government funding, nurses unions, and social workers. Not listening to these self-interested and often unionized groups doesn't mean Harris provided special benefits to Bay Street lawyers.

I stand by my initial statement. Also your comments here are more rhetoric that has not been substantiated. Are you even able to substantiate these comments??? :confused:

[KirkOntario]

Sorry Boreas. You simply haven't given a single policy of Mike Harris that you claim benefited "Bay Street lawyers" and when pressed you came up with cuts to health care as your example. Respectfully, that makes no sense whatsoever.

[Boreas]

Sorry Boreas. You simply haven't given a single policy of Mike Harris that you claim benefited "Bay Street lawyers" and when pressed you came up with cuts to health care as your example. Respectfully, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Of course not. :sneaky:

[Sanslines]

I agree. That is why it bothers me so much when the right-wing ideologues of today just slash and burn everything. It is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Saying that all social programs do not work is not true. Some do work. We need to find out what works and do more of that. Ideologues on either side are counterproductive.



I will check this out. It sounds interesting. Social programs should help people get on their feet. It is not enough to tell people to stand up. The fact is, some will need help. Funding projects and letting those in the community in need decide what they need can be very effective. The grass-roots know what the grass needs far better than the bigwigs in the sky.

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Just to clarify a bit, we might be talking about apples and oranges here. Mayor Booker has to deal with some very extreme problems that include murder, extreme violence, drug abuse, etc in the Newark Housing Projects. He has also had to deal with other problems including waste, fraud, and corruption at the government level.

Here is more on this courageous man: (From Wiki)

Cory Anthony Booker (born April 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_27), 1969 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969)) is the current Mayor of Newark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark%2C_New_Jersey), New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey). He is a Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29) politician and former Newark Councilman and community activist who ran unsuccessfully for mayor in 2002 against longtime incumbent Sharpe James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_James). Booker ran again in 2006 and won a sweeping victory against Ronald Rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Rice) to become the 36th mayor of Newark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Newark%2C_New_Jersey).

The son of civil rights activists, Cary and Carolyn Booker, who were among the first African-American executives at IBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM), Booker was born in Washington, D.C. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%2C_D.C.) and grew up in the predominantly white, affluent town of Harrington Park (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrington_Park%2C_New_Jersey) in Bergen County, New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergen_County%2C_New_Jersey).<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-0>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker#cite_note-0)</SUP> He is an alumnus of Northern Valley Regional High School at Old Tappan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Valley_Regional_High_School_at_Old_Tappan ).<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-1>[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker#cite_note-1)</SUP> Booker traveled west to study at Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University), where he earned a B.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts) in political science in 1991 and an M.A. in sociology the following year. He played varsity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varsity_team) football (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_football) — he made the All-Pacific Ten Academic team; — and was elected to the council of (four) presidents. While he was there, he ran The Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_Peer_Counseling_Center), a student-run crisis hotline and organized help for youth in East Palo Alto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palo_Alto%2C_California) from Stanford students.
He won a Rhodes Scholarship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Scholarship) and studied at The Queen's College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Queen%27s_College%2C_Oxford), Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford), where he was awarded an honors degree in modern history in 1994. At Oxford, he became friends with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shmuley_Boteach). He became the President of the L'Chaim Society, a Jewish group founded by Boteach, to signify his commitment to end tensions between Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew) and African Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American).
After Oxford, he obtained a J.D. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juris_doctor) from Yale Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Law_School) in 1997 and, while there, started and operated free legal clinics for low-income residents of New Haven. He was also a Big Brother (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brothers_Big_Sisters_of_America), and was active in the Black Law Students Association. After law school, Booker returned to New Jersey. He served as Staff Attorney for the Urban Justice Center in New York and Program Coordinator of the Newark Youth Project.
From 1998 to 2006, he lived in Brick Towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick_Towers), a notorious public housing project in Newark's Central Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Ward%2C_Newark%2C_New_Jersey). Booker organized tenants there to fight for improved conditions. In November 2006, Booker left his apartment for the top unit in a three-story rental on Hawthorne Avenue on Newark's south side, an area described as "a drug- and gang-plagued neighborhood of boarded-up houses and empty lots."
<SUP></SUP>
In 1998, Booker won an upset victory, beating an unorganized four-term incumbent to get elected to the Newark City Council, a council known for its corruption and hard-fought elections.
Once on the Council, Booker proved to be an unconventional public official. In 1999, he went on a 10-day hunger strike, living in a tent in front of one of Newark's worst housing projects, to protest open-air drug dealing. For five months in 2000, he lived in a motor home, parking on street corners known to be places where drug trafficking occurred.
He proposed a variety of Council initiatives that impacted housing, young people, law and order, and the efficiency of City Hall, but was regularly rebuffed by a resistant City Council and often outvoted 8-1.
While on the Council, Booker became an advocate of school vouchers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_vouchers) as part of a reform of the education system.

In 2002, rather than run for re-election as Councilman, Booker decided to run for Mayor of Newark. This pitted him against long-time mayor, Sharpe James (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpe_James). In this campaign and the next, James supporters questioned Booker's suburban background, calling him a carpetbagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger#Modern_usage) who was "not black enough" to understand the city Booker was defeated, 53 percent to 47 percent. The Academy-Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy-Award)-nominated documentary by filmmaker Marshall Curry (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marshall_Curry&action=edit&redlink=1) entitled Street Fight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fight_%28film%29) details the campaign.
After concluding his service as a Councilman, in 2003 Booker founded, and became the director of, Newark Now, a grassroots nonprofit group. He is also a partner at the West Orange (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Orange%2C_New_Jersey) law firm, Booker, Rabinowitz, et al., and a senior fellow at Rutgers University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_University)'s Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_J._Bloustein_School_of_Planning_and_Public_ Policy). He is also a member of the Board of Trustees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees) at Teachers College, Columbia University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teachers_College%2C_Columbia_University), a member of the Executive Committee at Yale Law School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_Law_School) and was formerly a member of the Board of Trustees at Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University).

As expected, Cory Booker announced on February 11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_11), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) that he would run for mayor again, an intention he made clear after his loss in 2002.
On March 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_6), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), Deputy Mayor (and State Senator) Ronald Rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Rice) entered the race, adding "that Mayor James had encouraged him to run but noted that if the mayor decided to join the race, his candidacy could change." On March 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_27), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), James announced that he would not seek a sixth term, preferring to focus on his seat in the New Jersey Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Senate).
Rice ran a campaign attacking Booker for raising over $6 million for the race. Booker's campaign outspent Rice's 25 to 1. Booker tried to identify Rice as a "political crony" of former mayor Sharpe James, to whom Booker lost in 2002.
On Election Day, May 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_9), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), Newark's nonpartisan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan) election took place. Booker won with 72 percent of the vote, soundly defeating Ronald Rice. Booker's entire slate of City Council candidates, known as the "Booker Team," swept the Council elections, giving Booker firm leadership of the city's government.
On May 31 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_31), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), before taking office as Mayor, Booker sued Newark in order to get the New Jersey state courts to stop the city from selling land at prices he felt were too low. The land was mainly sold at prices ranging from $1 to $4 per square foot. The city council argued that this was the only way to promote development in Newark's blighted neighborhoods. Booker was also criticized by council members because as a councilman he approved of some of these deals. Booker's attorneys argued that the city had violated the state's "pay-to-play (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay-to-play)" law by rewarding campaign contributors with land deals at favorable financial terms. On June 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_20), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) Superior Court Judge Patricia Costello ruled in favor of Booker, stating that his attorneys had "made a persuasive argument that campaign contributors were given discounted land deals".
Days before Booker took office in late June, New Jersey investigators foiled a plot, led by Bloods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloods) gang leaders inside four New Jersey state prisons, to assassinate Booker. The plot was led by New Jersey Bloods gang leader Lester Alford, an inmate in East Jersey State Prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahway_State_Prison) in Woodbridge Township, New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbridge_Township%2C_New_Jersey). The plan called for prisoners in four New Jersey state prisons to riot and then for Bloods gang members on the outside to simultaneously assassinate Booker. Booker has been placed under 24-hour surveillance by the Newark Police Department. The reason for the threats against Booker are believed to be in response to Booker's campaign promises to increase the number of police on the streets and take a harder line on crime.

Booker assumed office as mayor of Newark on July 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), just the third person to govern the city since 1970. After a week, Booker announced a 100-day plan to implement reforms in Newark. The centerpiece is adding police officers; other changes include ending background checks for many city jobs, an effort to help former offenders find employment in the city; refurbishing police stations; improving city services; and expanding summer youth programs.
Booker campaigned for U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman) in Connecticut on August 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_6), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), two days before the Democratic primary pitting Lieberman against challenger Ned Lamont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Lamont).
On August 21 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_21), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) Booker formally introduced his proposed Newark City Budget before the Municipal Council for approval. Booker's $697.1 million budget calls for an 8.3% increase in the city's property tax, which if passed would be one of the largest property tax increases in the city's history. The budget would also increase the number of city employees from 3,968 to 4,197.
Booker appointed Garry McCarthy, a former police commander of Manhattan's 33rd Precinct in the late 1990s, as the director of the Newark Police Department (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newark_Police_Department&action=edit&redlink=1). McCarthy was credited with sharply reducing crime in the precinct but was also criticized by some for methods including setting up police barricades around neighborhoods in order to monitor the drug trade.
Booker's administration has held monthly office hours with city residents where residents can meet personally with the Mayor to discuss their problems.
Booker is a member of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayors_Against_Illegal_Guns_Coalition), a bi-partisan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-partisan) group with a stated goal of "making the public safer by getting illegal guns off the streets." The Coalition is co-chaired by Boston (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston) mayor Thomas Menino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Menino) and New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) mayor Michael Bloomberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg).

Booker is known to be personal friends with former New York Giant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Giant)'s star Tiki Barber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiki_Barber) and U.S. Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senator) Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama).

[Sanslines]

Here is background on the previous Mayor of Newark, Sharpe James, that Cory Booker superseeded: (from Wiki)

Sharpe James (born February 20 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_20), 1936 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936)) is a Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29) politician from New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey), who served as State Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Senate) for the 29th Legislative District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Legislature#District_29) and was 35th Mayor of Newark, New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Newark%2C_New_Jersey). James was the second African American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_American) Mayor of Newark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newark%2C_New_Jersey) and served five, four-year terms before declining to run for re-election. From June 1999 until leaving his position as Mayor in July 2006, James simultaneously served as Mayor of Newark and New Jersey State Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Legislature#District_29). He declined to run for re-election to the State Senate in 2007; his term as Senator expired in January 2008. Prior to politics, James worked as a physical education teacher.
On 12 July (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12) 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), a federal grand jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury) sitting in Newark indicted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment) James on 25 counts that include mail fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_fraud), wire fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wire_fraud), and conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29). James appeared before a federal magistrate judge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magistrate_Judge#Federal_judicial_system) on 12 July (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12) and responded that he understood the charges against him. James was released on bail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail) of $250,000, his passport was confiscated, and he is not permitted to travel outside of New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey) without permission of the Court. James was arraigned in Federal Court on July 23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_23), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) and entered a plea of not guilty. His trial date was tentatively scheduled for February 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_4), 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008), but his lawyers have asked that it be delayed until the spring.

James earned a B.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts) in education from Montclair State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montclair_State_University) and a M.A. in physical education from Springfield College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_College). He received the 1961 Department of Physiology Award from that school, and later completed postgraduate studies at Washington State University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_University), Columbia University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University), and Rutgers University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutgers_University). He also served with the U.S. Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army) in Germany. In 1988, James was awarded an Honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Montclair State University, and, in 1991, an Honorary Doctorate from Drew University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_University).

Sharpe James was first elected to public office in 1970 as South Ward Councilman. He was first elected Mayor of Newark on May 13 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_13), 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986), and was sworn into office on July 1 of that year. He was the first Newark mayor to run unopposed when he sought re-election in 1990 and handily won re-election in 1994 and 1998. Sharpe James became Newark's longest-serving mayor when he was re-elected for an unprecedented fifth term in 2002, a year after being named Mayor of the Year by the New Jersey Conference of Mayors.
In December 1992, James was a member of the New Jersey State Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College), one of 15 electors casting their votes for the Clinton/Gore ticket.
In June 1999, while serving as Mayor, James was appointed to the New Jersey Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Senate) to fill out the unexpired term of the late Senator Wynona Lipman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynona_Lipman), and won election to that seat the following November. He was re-elected for a full term in November 2001, and continued to hold both offices. His Senate district encompasses part of Newark in Essex County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essex_County%2C_New_Jersey) and all of the Township of Hillside (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillside%2C_New_Jersey) in Union County (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_County%2C_New_Jersey).
Sharpe James became known in his early years as mayor for often wearing jogging suits in public and making high-profile efforts to attract development to Downtown Newark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Newark). In 1997, Newark saw the completion of the acclaimed New Jersey Performing Arts Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Performing_Arts_Center).
In terms of housing, James' policy in the 1990s was to demolish Newark's massive, but mostly abandoned, housing projects, and replace them with small scale public housing or market rate middle class residences.

James, however, is a very controversial figure. In 2002, he was paid $213,000 per year as mayor of a medium-sized city, a salary higher than any governor in the nation. (This figure does not include his $49,000 salary as State Senator.) In addition several members of his administration were convicted of corruption, including his chief of staff, who served time in jail.
2002 was James' only close election. He was challenged by Cory Booker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker), a Central Ward councilman and former Stanford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University) football star and Rhodes Scholar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Scholar). The contentious election was chronicled in the Academy Award (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awards)-nominated documentary, Street Fight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fight_%28film%29). Sharpe James ran on a platform emphasizing his experience relative to the youthful Booker, utilizing the slogan "the Real Deal." He also used racially divisive rhetoric, saying to the Star Ledger of his opponent (who is black) "You have to learn to be African-American and we don't have time to train you." James was also shown in Street Fight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fight_%28film%29) insinuating that Mr. Booker is Jewish (Mr. Booker is a devout Christian), a Republican (Mr. Booker is a lifelong Democrat), and allegedly a homosexual. He also referred to Cory Booker as a carpet bagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bagger) in a speech made in the Ironbound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironbound) section of Newark. After a particularly venomous campaign that included accusations from both sides of corruption and violence, James won the 2002 election with 53% of the vote, buoyed by particularly strong returns from the African-American population.
On March 16 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_16), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), James filed for reelection. However, on March 27 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_27), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), James announced that he would not seek a sixth term, but would remain as a state senator. On April 9 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_9), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007), James said that he would not seek re-election to his State Senate seat.
In September 2006, The Star-Ledger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Ledger) reported that James is being investigated for spending city money on personal entertainment, including trips to Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil) and Florida (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida). In June 2007, The Star-Ledger and other newspapers reported that James had received a target letter from the U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, informing James that he is the target of a federal investigation and inviting him to testify before a grand jury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury) prior to their vote on whether or not to issue an indictment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment) against him.
He was indicted on July 12 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12), 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007) and charged with 25 counts of corruption including charges of using city credit cards for personal expenses and letting a companion buy municipal property for a fraction of its worth.

[Sanslines]

Public Housing Projects: Social Program Housing Solution or Housing Nightmare (Wiki)


Canada
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/34/HylanHousesBushwickBK.JPG/300px-HylanHousesBushwickBK.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HylanHousesBushwickBK.JPG)
Bushwick, Brooklyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushwick%2C_Brooklyn)'s twenty-story John F. Hylan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Francis_Hylan) Houses.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7f/St_James_Town1.jpg/300px-St_James_Town1.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:St_James_Town1.jpg)
St. James Town (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James_Town) apartments in Downtown Toronto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downtown_Toronto).


In the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), projects are usually a block of purpose-built government subsidized housing operated by a government agency, often simply referred to as projects with easier-to-manage town houses. Numerous federal, state and local enactments have greatly diminished criminal activity inside projects and altered who is entitled to live in them. Canada, especially Toronto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto), still maintains primarily large high-rise clustered developments in working class neighborhoods, a system that has fallen into disfavor in both the UK and US, with the exception of New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City). In Toronto, large projects house largely immigrants and refugees, and lower-income Canadians.
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, government involvement in housing for the poor was chiefly in the introduction of buildings standards. Most housing communities were developed from the 1930s onward and initial public housing was largely slum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slum) regeneration, with no nationwide expansion of public housing. This helped ease the concerns of a health-conscious public by eliminating or altering neighborhoods commonly considered dangerous, and reflected progressive-era sanitation initiatives. However, the advent of make-shift tent communities during the Great Depression caused concern in the Administration. Public housing in its earliest decades was usually much more working-class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working-class) and middle-class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-class) and white than it was by the 1960s. Many Americans associate large, multi-story towers with public housing, but early projects were actually low-rise, though Le Corbusier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier) superblocks caught on before World War II.
Public housing was only built with the blessing of the local government, and projects were almost never built on suburban greenfields (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenfield_land) (with the exception of Toronto), but through regeneration of older neighborhoods. The destruction of tenements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenement) and eviction of their low-income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-income) residents consistently created problems in nearby neighborhoods with "soft" real estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate) markets. Houses, apartments or other residential units are usually subsidized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized) on a rent-geared-to-income (RGI) basis. Some communities have now embraced a mixed income, with both assisted and market rents, when allocating homes as they become available.
Public housing in the US has been overhauled in recent years after criticism that neglect and concentrated poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty) have contributed to increased crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime). HUD's 1993 HOPE VI program addresses these issues by funding renewal of public housing to decrease its density and allow for tenants with mixed income levels. Projects continue to have a reputation for violence, drug (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_drug_use) use, and prostitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution), especially in New Orleans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans) and New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City) (which houses 408,000 registered residents) leading to the passage of a 1996 federal "one strike you're out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_strike_you%27re_out)" law, enabling the eviction of tenants convicted of crimes, especially drug-related, or merely as a result of being tried for some crimes. Other attempts to solve these problems include the 1978 Section 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_%28housing%29) Housing Program, which encourages the private sector to construct affordable homes, and subsidises public housing. This assistance can be "project based," subsidising properties, or "tenant based," which provides tenants with a voucher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voucher), accepted by some landlords.
In Canada, following the decentralisation of public housing to local municipalities, Social Housing Services Corporation (SHSC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Housing_Services_Corporation_%28SHSC%29) was created in the Province of Ontario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario) in 2002 to provide group services for social housing providers (public housing, non-profit housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_housing) and co-operative housing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative_housing)). It is a non-profit corporation which provides Ontario housing providers and service managers with bulk purchasing, insurance, investment and information services that add significant value to their operations.

[blackrebel]

I'd ask Democrats to step up to the plate and be as compassionate as conservatives are. Healthy rivarly is what America is all about.

THANK YOU!!!

I am sooooooooooo fed up with these liberals in this forum with their non-stop bashing of those on the right, based on their twisted bigotry.

If you look at the partisan attacks, they are about ALL from the left in here.

Funny how Libs want to talk about tolerance and acceptance of those who are not like you, they are the most intolerant and start again and again with nit-picky issues with topics that are vapid at best.

Liberals are why I keep running to the right.

In fact, Liberals are why I am buying stock in Walmart and Haliburton, just to piss them off.

[Boreas]

Funny how Libs want to talk about tolerance and acceptance of those who are not like you, they are the most intolerant and start again and again with nit-picky issues with topics that are vapid at best.

Such as????

[MoonShadow]

THANK YOU!!!

Funny how Libs want to talk about tolerance and acceptance of those who are not like you, they are the most intolerant and start again and again with nit-picky issues with topics that are vapid at best.




They are not liberals if they are intolerant. Intolerance and liberalism are in opposition to each other.

[Qikdraw]

THANK YOU!!!

I am sooooooooooo fed up with these liberals in this forum with their non-stop bashing of those on the right, based on their twisted bigotry.

If you look at the partisan attacks, they are about ALL from the left in here.

Funny how Libs want to talk about tolerance and acceptance of those who are not like you, they are the most intolerant and start again and again with nit-picky issues with topics that are vapid at best.

Liberals are why I keep running to the right.

In fact, Liberals are why I am buying stock in Walmart and Haliburton, just to piss them off.

Interesting intolerant, partisian post you have here. You have just done what you accuse 'liberals' of, and detest.

If you want to add to the conversation at least bring something more to the table than hypocritical rhetoric. Kirk gets attacked because while he demands people provide proof to their accusations, he rarely does, even after he is asked. He puts forth partisian rhetoric, yet doesn't back it with facts. There are many here who will debate in a civil manner, howver you have to behave in a like manner. You also have an 'ignore' feature to tune out those who you feel are 'attacking' you. I haven't put anyone on ignore yet, but I simply tune out those who I feel have proven to be trolls.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

It's the same old conservative game. This time the flap-doodle and yammer-yammer is about conservative households donating more to charities than do liberal households. Vague generalities prove nothing.

So what? The essential truths are these:
Were liberal policies to hold sway, there would be less need for charities.
Liberals put their ideology to work in deeds and action.
Liberals, with clear consciences, do not need to throw money at charities to feel good about themselves or to salve their consciences.What one really needs to know is precisely what charities do conservatives "support", what is the efficacy of those charities, who did the "studies" and why, and which of those charities are secular and which are religious?

If one knew all that, one would have a basis for debate. Until then, it is just right-wing, conservative yammer-yammer, and flap-doodle deserving of the scorn and derision it is getting.

[KirkOntario]

THANK YOU!!!

I am sooooooooooo fed up with these liberals in this forum with their non-stop bashing of those on the right, based on their twisted bigotry.

If you look at the partisan attacks, they are about ALL from the left in here.

Funny how Libs want to talk about tolerance and acceptance of those who are not like you, they are the most intolerant and start again and again with nit-picky issues with topics that are vapid at best.

Liberals are why I keep running to the right.

In fact, Liberals are why I am buying stock in Walmart and Haliburton, just to piss them off.

Excellent point. Liberals talk about 'tolerance' and how they value 'diversity' and tout 'open mindedness' but what we see in reality is the opposite demonstrated by liberals. So not only are they challenged by conservative to give more they need to try to see thing from the point of view of the other side and actually put those alleged values into action.

We're rooting for you liberals!

[Sanslines]

Excellent point. Liberals talk about 'tolerance' and how they value 'diversity' and tout 'open mindedness' but what we see in reality is the opposite demonstrated by liberals.

The word 'liberal' is vastly misused and misunderstood. It is incorrectly used to depict Democrats in a negative manner. In fact, there are liberal Democrats and Republicans as well as members from other parties.

The basic philosophy of true liberalism is that the individual keep and open mind and tolerates and respects diversity of all individuals. Unfortunately, many individuals who refer to themselves as liberal as the least tolerant and most closed minded around.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to strongly resist change of any shape or form. Some aspect of society can benefit from a conservative attitude (such as real fiscal conservative discipline) but are lacking in the present administration. With the many serious problems and issues facing the USA, there will most probably be a shift away from the Conservative 'attitude' which has maintainted the status quo to a more REAL liberal attitude where problems are acknowledged, debated, and possible solutions to those problems enacted.

[Boreas]

Am I intolerant? Darned right I am! I am intolerant of policies that strip away support programs and the social safety net. I am intolerant of policies that put corporate needs above all else. I am intolerant of any of the neoliberal driven current politics. Am I apologetic about this? No.

With the many serious problems and issues facing the USA, there will most probably be a shift away from the Conservative 'attitude' which has maintainted the status quo to a more REAL liberal attitude where problems are acknowledged, debated, and possible solutions to those problems enacted.

May it be so. Enough of this holier than thou declarations from "conservatives" accusing "liberals" of being intolerant. Enough of this labelling and mudslinging.

If the self-declared "conservatives have any actual productive ideas to contribute I would love to hear them. Throwing barbs and mud are a waste of my time. :rant:<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[MoonShadow]

The word 'liberal' is vastly misused and misunderstood. It is incorrectly used to depict Democrats in a negative manner. In fact, there are liberal Democrats and Republicans as well as members from other parties.

The basic philosophy of true liberalism is that the individual keep and open mind and tolerates and respects diversity of all individuals. Unfortunately, many individuals who refer to themselves as liberal as the least tolerant and most closed minded around.

Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to strongly resist change of any shape or form. Some aspect of society can benefit from a conservative attitude (such as real fiscal conservative discipline) but are lacking in the present administration. With the many serious problems and issues facing the USA, there will most probably be a shift away from the Conservative 'attitude' which has maintainted the status quo to a more REAL liberal attitude where problems are acknowledged, debated, and possible solutions to those problems enacted.


Well said! Today, the word, liberal, is so out of context of its meaning, that it is ridiculous. As you have seen in this thread when liberal is used it is used in opposition of what liberalism is about. Liberals have open minds. You cannot be liberal and intolerant. It is contrary to what being liberal is about.

What people should be using instead is that intolerance is supported by closed-minds period. Close mindedness cross the spectrum among radicals or zealots both left and right.

A true liberal is a good way for us to be.

[MoonShadow]

Am I intolerant? Darned right I am! I am intolerant of policies that strip away support programs and the social safety net. I am intolerant of policies that put corporate needs above all else. I am intolerant of any of the neoliberal driven current politics. Am I apologetic about this? No.



As you should be, Boreas. None of which has anything to do with whether you are liberal or conservative.

[Sanslines]

Here, as an example, is a detailed problem:

Living in the Public Housing Projects:

Many from Nation's Most Beleaguered Public Housing Projects Moved to Safer Neighborhoods, but Challenges Remain

<!-- --><TABLE class=CS_Layout_Table id=idLayout2 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width="100%" summary=""><TBODY><TR class=CS_Layout_TR><TD class=CS_Layout_TD id=idCell2x1x1><LINK href="/style/nobackground.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet><SCRIPT>document.getElementById('renderforprintvars').valu e='&id=901091';</SCRIPT><LINK href="/style/background.css" type=text/css rel=stylesheet>

Author(s): The Urban Institute (http://www.urban.org/TheUrbanInstitute)
Other Availability: Printer-Friendly Page (http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=901091&renderforprint=1)
Posted to Web: June 26, 2007
Permanent Link: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=901091
Contact: Simona Combi, (202) 261-5709, scombi@ui.urban.org
<HR>WASHINGTON, D.C., June 265, 2007 -- A seven-year study of some of America's worst public housing projects shows that most residents have moved to dramatically safer neighborhoods. However, a substantial minority still live in traditional public housing developments that are only slightly better than the ones they left.
In 2001, 78 percent of the residents of five HOPE VI sites slated for demolition or refurbishment reported "big problems" with drug sales. When questioned by Urban Institute researchers four years later, 16 percent of those who had moved to private-market housing or returned to new homes at the HOPE VI locations reported such circumstances. Major problems with shootings and neighborhood violence also improved significantly, falling from 67 percent in 2001 to 17 percent in 2005.
As for those left behind, 16 percent remain in their original developments, living in conditions that are rapidly deteriorating as vacancies increase and another 22 percent relocated to other public housing, half of whom continue to report serious problems with drug trafficking and violent crime.
Administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) since 1993, HOPE VI replaces the worst public housing projects, occupied exclusively by poor families, with redesigned mixed-income housing and provides vouchers so some residents can rent apartments in the private market. The program also funds management improvements and supportive services (such as job training and day care) to promote self-sufficiency among the mostly African-American and Hispanic residents.
Begun in 2000, the Urban Institute study tracked 887 residents in five developments: Ida B. Wells/ Madden Park Homes in Chicago, Ill.; Easter Hill in Richmond, Calif.; Shore Park/Shore Terrace in Atlantic City, N.J.; Few Gardens in Durham, N.C.; and East Capitol Dwellings in Washington, D.C. Residents were surveyed in 2001, prior to relocation, and then in 2003 and 2005.
Forty-three percent of those in the study received housing choice vouchers and moved to private market housing, 10 percent rented units without any assistance, 5 percent moved back to a redeveloped HOPE VI site, and 4 percent became homeowners.
Residents who moved to the private market or returned to a mixed-income development gave their new housing high marks. In 2005, 68 percent of voucher holders and homeowners rated their housing as good or excellent, as did 64 percent of unassisted renters. Eighty-five percent of families living in new HOPE VI units gave their homes high ratings. In contrast, 39 percent of those in the original public housing and 49 percent of those relocated to other public housing gave their units a good or excellent grade.
Other Findings


Children whose families received vouchers are faring better after relocation than those who moved to traditional public housing developments.
The incidence of delinquent behaviors has increased for youth still living in their original development, especially among girls, and for youth in other public housing.
Voucher holders are significantly more likely than public housing residents to report financial hardships related to paying utilities and providing adequate food for their family.
Poor health was a major issue for study respondents in 2001, and the problem has intensified. Further, at every age level, respondents are much more likely to describe their health as fair or poor than other adults nationally and even than black women, a group with higher-than-average rates of poor health.
The death rate of HOPE VI residents exceeds the national average for black women—already high relative to other races—with the gap increasing dramatically at older ages.
While there have been important improvements in quality of life, employment overall has not changed. Poor health is the main reason residents are not working.
Hard-to-house residents—families coping with multiple complex problems, such as mental illness, severe physical illness, substance abuse, large numbers of young children, weak labor-market histories, and criminal records—are more likely to end up in traditional public housing than in the private market, where living conditions are better."Many critics predicted that residents would end up living in other very poor communities that would leave them little better off than they were. In fact, relocation has meant profound benefits for their quality of life. But, to build on these positive effects, HUD should require housing authorities to offer meaningful relocation counseling and provide long-term support to help more families succeed in the private market—or, ultimately, to return to new mixed-income housing," said Susan Popkin, the study's principal investigator and a principal research associate in the Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center at the Urban Institute.



</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

The above discusses a serious problem. It is going to take both Conservatives and Liberals working together to overcome problems such as this. Discussions as to who is more compassionate really is irrelevant to those who live under such conditions.

[BinCo]

THANK YOU!!!

I am sooooooooooo fed up with these liberals in this forum with their non-stop bashing of those on the right, based on their twisted bigotry.

If you look at the partisan attacks, they are about ALL from the left in here.

Funny how Libs want to talk about tolerance and acceptance of those who are not like you, they are the most intolerant and start again and again with nit-picky issues with topics that are vapid at best.

Liberals are why I keep running to the right.

In fact, Liberals are why I am buying stock in Walmart and Haliburton, just to piss them off.


Blackrebel. From my perspective the reason that there are far more liberals on this forum and every naturist forum I have ever run into is the simple fact that anti-nudity laws are based on religious intolerance. This is why there are no laws on the books for Federal property. ie: Federal Parks and such. The laws in those places are enforced by the ranger and they have the ability to dictate what is and is not acceptable nudity. While, in town here in Colorado, there are only 2 cities that have liberal nudity policies. Denver has rules about body contact while nude, Boulder too. Every other county and municipality has laws against nudity. Good luck trying to get any of them overturned as it is the conservative Christians who are the first to scream about the sacred body, or protecting the children, or some other complete line of BS that they use because they have been taught that the everyone is a sinner and this is just another way to show it. It disgusts me.

As far as the article, again, I would like them to remove church tithings and donations and then we would really see who is the most compassionate.

Just as important is to look at the general attitude of neocons. The "you made you bed now sleep in it" attitude that will let people fall into total despair and bankruptcy before they offer help. Then this same group of troglodyte neocons that scream when liberals try to put into place regulations to keep things going along with some sort of intelligence.

[usmc1]

Excellent point. Liberals talk about 'tolerance' and how they value 'diversity' and tout 'open mindedness' but what we see in reality is the opposite demonstrated by liberals. So not only are they challenged by conservative to give more they need to try to see thing from the point of view of the other side and actually put those alleged values into action.

We're rooting for you liberals!

More untruths, flap-doodle, obfuscation & yammer-yammer. The nice people here are pointing out, categorically, just how wrong you are. Me? Since I'm not nice, and know exactly the lack of moral base from which conservatoids behave am calling it what it is. Conservative flap-doodle, humma-humma and yammer-yammer.

The essential truths are these:
Were liberal policies to hold sway, there would be less need for charities.
Liberals put their ideology to work in deeds and action.
Liberals, with clear consciences, do not need to throw money at charities to feel good about themselves or to salve their consciences.What one really needs to know is precisely what charities do conservatives "support", what is the efficacy of those charities, who did the "studies" and why, and which of those charities are secular and which are religious?

If one knew all that, one would have a basis for debate. Until then, it is just right-wing, conservative yammer-yammer, and flap-doodle deserving of the scorn and derision it is getting.

[Qikdraw]

Majority of U.S. Doctors Back National Insurance Plan (http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2008/03/31/hscout613954.html)

Qikdraw

[chops]

So even when conservatives donate to charities, they're still bad? They only do it to assuage their guilty conscious? Another illustration of the tolerance and open-mindedness of the left.

[MoonShadow]

Again .... you CANNOT be a liberal and be intolerant and closed-minded. What everyone on this thread is talking about are intolerant and closed minded individuals of different persuasions. THIS is NOT liberalism.

[usmc1]

So even when conservatives donate to charities, they're still bad? They only do it to assuage their guilty conscious? Another illustration of the tolerance and open-mindedness of the left.

Well, I hear this word tolerance bandied around by conservative quite a bit. Usually in this context; Danged old liberals are a bunch of hypocrites, they aren't tolerant of my intolerance. "I was just pushing this ole liberal around a bit for funsies, and the sob went and slugged me--danged old hypocritical intolerant liberal meanies!"

If one really wanted to have a serious discussion about the charitable giving of "liberals" and "conservatives" one would have to start with a study, with very clear definitions of what constitutes "charity"; showing to which charities those demographics gave, the political ties or stances on issues of those charities, and the amount of discretionary money available for giving of the two groups.

I think you'd find that there might be a pattern.

But, a contribution, say, to a church school, might on the face of it seem charitable. But, if that church is issues-oriented in anti-gay, anti-catholic, anti-semitic, anti-public education sentiment...one might want to consider if one wants to regard that as a charitable contribution. By the same token, if that church school is active in refuge for undocumented workers, one has to consider if that is really a charity or form of political activism.

One believes that in the study cited, contribution to entities as I have just described are included as "charitable contributions", rendering it as conservative flap-doodle and yammer-yammer.

[nacktman]

Oni stručnjak nas to vjerovati išta , ne oni!

They expect us to believe anything, don’t they!

[chops]

Not every conservative christian is anti-gay, anti-semite and anti-abortion. To classify them as such is more then a bit extreme. I don't know where such clap trap originates, but it'd be nice to think a little more sanely about our differences and spend less time classifying entire groups of people we haven't even met. Both sides are guilty of it. Doesn't help us make any progress.

[usmc1]

Not every conservative christian is anti-gay, anti-semite and anti-abortion. To classify them as such is more then a bit extreme. I don't know where such clap trap originates, but it'd be nice to think a little more sanely about our differences and spend less time classifying entire groups of people we haven't even met. Both sides are guilty of it. Doesn't help us make any progress.

To topic line> No!

Maybe not every conservative Christian are the things you refer to. Maybe not, but, how many of them take a stand against such things? Seriously, I've yet to run across a conservative Christian who is pro gay rights, pro abortion, or pro Jews--and I don't mean Israel. Are you one?

Your labeling other's ideologies and ways of expressing those ideologies as clap trap and insane is different in what way from the collective view that conservative Christians as a group are the very things you cite?

[chops]

Nuff said.

[usmc1]

Nuff said.

Good! Glad I was around to help you get it!

[chops]

...but I "had it" long before I became a member of this forum. I just hope you can keep an open mind about conservatives. Most of 'em aren't so bad. Really. Take care.

[nacktman]

...but I "had it" long before I became a member of this forum. I just hope you can keep an open mind about conservatives. Most of 'em aren't so bad. Really. Take care.

Some not most, there chop, and then only those that are 'true conservatives' ... ones that fall into the mold of Jack Cafferty and even the late William F. Buckley even though neither of them are what could be actually termed conservative as the term actually means.

And as you may have noted - it has been posted on these forums and elsewhere that Cafferty sounds more and more like a Liberal every day.

And it will come as a shocker to the noise machine here that some of my best friends are 'conservatives' - as in the 'true' kind ... one is even as the old term describes them - "a flamer" and he is so over-the-top about his 'gayness' "flamer" really seems a inadequate term.

[Naturist Mark]

The most generous givers as a percentage of income are the poor (making less than $20k), followed by the wealthy (over $200k). 1 (www.csmonitor.com/2006/1127/p01s01-usec.html)

-Mark