Journal pudge's Journal: Democrats: Please Nominate John Edwards 17
Democrats: yesterday I noted that Obama and Hillary think you are stupid.
John Edwards doesn't. Please nominate him.
Because no matter who the GOP nominates, it would be so incredibly easy to beat someone who would drastically increase taxes to pay for universal health care, who thinks the phrase "war on terror" damages our efforts to win the war on terror, who wants to repeal the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but would create new rights to have Internet access, a college education, a job, and citizenship after working here for five years.
I won't bother watching the interview (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I bet I don't have to either. Since the word "rights" is loaded, Edwards will just clarify and spin with more explanation if it becomes necessary. He'll say he thinks people Should have those things, just like nobody Should have to live under a bridge in our great country.
That would be a clear lie.
I believe everyone should have health care, but I believe that we should lower the cost of it through government deregulation and so on, and that people should provide it for themselves. Edwards specifically disagrees with me by saying it is a "right" and therefore government should provide it to people who cannot provide it for themselves. That is the reason he uses the word "right." There's no wiggle room here.
So what's going on with you? (Score:2)
I mean really. I'm pretty sure Edwards said during the debate most of the tax increase will be to those making more than a couple hundred thousand dollars a year. The lower and middle classes really ought to stop thinking Edwards will raise their taxes. But then hey there's all those people who got a small credit per child from Bush and thought the world of that.
Re: (Score:1)
I have worked for a number of folks who made six digits or more. But I am really struggling to think of a time when I have been employed by someone who did not.
To make this completely trite:
First they came for the millionaires, and I said nothing because I didn't make millions. Then they came for the six digit guys, but I was paid less, so I did not say anything. Oh shoot, I am in the
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind making $250,000 or a combined income of that either, but if I did I'd have plenty of money and paying another $10,000, or $20,000 wouldn't upset me unless I actually thought the tax rate was unfa
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly think a flat tax would be an improvement, morally and practically, but why shouldn't the starting point for "fair" be how much money the government actually needs to perform its function? To me, the
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the majority of reasonable people want criminals coming out of prison reformed and rehabilitated, not only punished. Imagine getting released and handed a huge bill along with possibly your property seized to sell off. If you don't have friends or family that will take you in,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It amazes me how many people over the last few decades have somehow forgotten what Penal System and Penal Code mean, and have changed many people's belief's that the system is supposed to coddle and "rehabilitate" and not punish people for committing crimes.
The primary purpose of the penal system is to punish. Anything else is gravy. Funded by the rest of us that actually do live within the law, no less.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the primary purpose of the penal system is to punish, but once family and the school system have failed to keep someone out of prison, something ought to be done to keep that person from returning. Since the person has days, months, or years of time on their hands, spending it becoming a better person who won't be coming back makes sense to me.
Re: (Score:2)
but once family and the school system have failed to keep someone out of prison,
Puh-leeze... "family and the school system" do not make people into criminals. People choose to break the law themselves. This sounds like typical "it's society's fault" pandering. In the end it's up to each individual to make something of themselves or not, and to decide to live within the law or not. Yes, having involved parents can make a big difference, but there are plenty of people that have very involved parents that still go wrong, and plenty of people without involved parents that make somethi
Re: (Score:2)
And you haven't lived enough if you haven't know people with fucked up families deeply involved in each other's lives. Yes some people turn out fine in spite of their families or their situations.
It's up to that person to make the best of their time in prison and up to them to decide to bec
Re: (Score:2)
So are you saying you're against reaching out to prisoners and offering them programs to help them? I'm NOT saying force them. If they refuse, fine.
Actually no, I don't have any problem with such programs. However I think they should absolutely be voluntary, and should be extremely strict. Anyone that breaks the rules should be kicked out. Inmates should have to show that they have the desire to improve their lives and that they can work within the rules when any taxpayer money is used on such programs. I'd even be willing to allow for 1 strike for inmates as long as they can show they will stick to the rules. But 2nd strike and they're out.
Are you aware of how homeless outreach programs usually work? Workers come by to the homeless and talk to them, try to convince them to come inside, clean themselves up. Many of them refuse the first time. The workers come by every so often and keep up the dialog. Eventually many do come in, and some get back to having a roof over their head and a paycheck. They might not have been able to do it without the programs to help.
Whic
Re: (Score:2)
Which just helps to show that people won't do anything to help even themselves until they're ready.
I don't know exactly how much more or how much faster the outreach workers help people want to help themselves, but they make a positive difference.
Re: (Score:2)
He doesn't say that, of course. He may even deny it. He says things like "more aggressive tax gathering" will increase revenue. And that's all assuming it actually costs only about $90-$120 billion a year, which I disbelieve.
pretty crazy (Score:2)