welsh
Junkmaster
I will agree with you that there are extremists on both sides. The problem is that the extremists are often capable of pulling candidates to their liking.
I don´t like Romney because he seems shifty to me. He changes his tune to whatever suits the political will. But I suspect he will have a difficult fight overcoming his Mormonism for the Christian voters. THey just won´t stomach a non-Christian. For most Christians, Mormons are not Christians.
As for education issues- Compare the Northeast- where liberal administrations highly support education and education in California and Washington. If you compare Blue to Red states, you will generally find that Blue states give more support to education than Red states, and you will probably find that Red states have lower education scores.
And that´s a big damn problem because by education standards, most agree that American education has been falling behind other counties for decades.
As for race- yes, once upon a time the South states were predominantly democrat. Then Kennedy-Johnson adopted the Voting Rights Act and pushed civil rights. SInce then Black populations have moved from being around 80% in poverty to a poverty rate of only about 25-30%. At the same time, the Republicans began to move on a ´state´s rights´doctrine (and this the party of Roosevelt and Lincoln) in order to allow states to jettison aspects of the federal program to assure equality. Since then democratcs (representing blacks) have continued to support programs for inner city black communities. Bush administration cut these programs a couple of years ago.
Gun control- the gun advocates argue that this is about allowing ever law abiding citizen a right to a gun no matter where. For many urban areas that suffer high levels of crime the idea is to stop a flow of weapons into a community and reduce the number of gun related homicides. I think we can agree that guns alone don´t cause crime but we can agree also that a lot of violent crimes in our society are done with a gun. It can also be proven that crime is more likely where there are inequalities in income and high rates of poverty. Don´t neighborhoods that suffer those problems have the right to limit the amount of violence? And by allowing further violence aren´t you basically allowing poverty and dispair to continue?
As for abortion- I have also had some experience. I agree, its terrible and it changes everyone involved. Avoid it like the plague. I am in agreement with Johnny on his prescription here.
The problem is that the notion of sexual education is considered repugnant. Hell, public education is becoming repugnant and thus you have an increase in home schooling while republicans also advocate school vouchers to collapse public education- the strongest tool for social mobility in this society.
I don´t like the notion of abortion as a form of birth control, but I do support the woman´s right to choose. The sad fact is that poor folks generally have more kids than middle or upper classes. This means you have a constantly growing poor population. Now you may argue that they should use contraception and we can argue about the costs. But lack of birth control is also one of the reasons you see an increase in HIV/AIDS - the cause is lack of sex education.
In a middle class or upper class household and unwanted pregnancy may have limited consequences. But in a poor family, a single houshold where the girl has not yet had a chance of (rapidly costly college education) and has to support multiple children, you are crippling the family in poverty- leading to continued lack of education and an increased likelihood of crime as well as many of the other problems faced by the poor.
The sad fact is that where countries are able to use family planning (abortion and contraception) they can control population growth and reduce poverty. This is because they can more adequately limit the number of family members that must be supported on limited incomes. So poor women are told they have to have these babies- despite lack of social services to raise the baby. The impact is felt not just on the woman, but on her family, and through her family on society as well.
(who pays the costs- we do. We have with a growing poor community, increased crime, increased problems in public health, increased addiction rates, despair, depression).
Is this moral? ABortion is a terrible thing. But I think the costs of generation of poverty is even worse- especially for societies which are continuing to cut programs that help poor achieve a better life.
Now you can call me a socialist if you want, or even a communist. I don´t give a flying fuck for labels. But I think inequality in our country is probably the single biggest challenge we face. The fact that the US has one of the hightest levels of inequality in the developed world corresponds to the fact that despite having the most powerful economy, we don´t have the best quality of life, that our longevity is limited, our education is sub par, and a vareity of social ailments that we shouldn´t have in this country.
Republicans gave us the trickle down economics where if you give to the rich, it trickles down to the poor (if in ever declining numbers). It was the Republicans who also gave us corporate welfare and who have used Iraq and Katrina as a means of corporate payoffs. Why? Because at the end of the day the Republicans remain a party of the rich and powerful. Even Evangelicals have been caught wondering why they gained so little from the Bush administration in exchange for their support. And the one institution that exists to offset the imbalance of power in the economy and society (the government) they have been steadily destroying.
And if you look at this group of republican candidates what you see is more Bush policy for the next 4 years. I think the last 8 were enough.
I think we need a US with a better and stronger middle class, where Americans (regardless of origins, race or birthright) have a chance to make the most of themselves. We need a country that promotes innovation and development and not impowerment of a few strong companies. We need more equality and opportunity, not less. And we need effective government to do it.
Given a choice between the two parties, I have to go Democrat. I am not happy with the candidates on either side, but given the alternatives- I will go Democrat.
I don´t like Romney because he seems shifty to me. He changes his tune to whatever suits the political will. But I suspect he will have a difficult fight overcoming his Mormonism for the Christian voters. THey just won´t stomach a non-Christian. For most Christians, Mormons are not Christians.
As for education issues- Compare the Northeast- where liberal administrations highly support education and education in California and Washington. If you compare Blue to Red states, you will generally find that Blue states give more support to education than Red states, and you will probably find that Red states have lower education scores.
And that´s a big damn problem because by education standards, most agree that American education has been falling behind other counties for decades.
As for race- yes, once upon a time the South states were predominantly democrat. Then Kennedy-Johnson adopted the Voting Rights Act and pushed civil rights. SInce then Black populations have moved from being around 80% in poverty to a poverty rate of only about 25-30%. At the same time, the Republicans began to move on a ´state´s rights´doctrine (and this the party of Roosevelt and Lincoln) in order to allow states to jettison aspects of the federal program to assure equality. Since then democratcs (representing blacks) have continued to support programs for inner city black communities. Bush administration cut these programs a couple of years ago.
Gun control- the gun advocates argue that this is about allowing ever law abiding citizen a right to a gun no matter where. For many urban areas that suffer high levels of crime the idea is to stop a flow of weapons into a community and reduce the number of gun related homicides. I think we can agree that guns alone don´t cause crime but we can agree also that a lot of violent crimes in our society are done with a gun. It can also be proven that crime is more likely where there are inequalities in income and high rates of poverty. Don´t neighborhoods that suffer those problems have the right to limit the amount of violence? And by allowing further violence aren´t you basically allowing poverty and dispair to continue?
As for abortion- I have also had some experience. I agree, its terrible and it changes everyone involved. Avoid it like the plague. I am in agreement with Johnny on his prescription here.
The problem is that the notion of sexual education is considered repugnant. Hell, public education is becoming repugnant and thus you have an increase in home schooling while republicans also advocate school vouchers to collapse public education- the strongest tool for social mobility in this society.
I don´t like the notion of abortion as a form of birth control, but I do support the woman´s right to choose. The sad fact is that poor folks generally have more kids than middle or upper classes. This means you have a constantly growing poor population. Now you may argue that they should use contraception and we can argue about the costs. But lack of birth control is also one of the reasons you see an increase in HIV/AIDS - the cause is lack of sex education.
In a middle class or upper class household and unwanted pregnancy may have limited consequences. But in a poor family, a single houshold where the girl has not yet had a chance of (rapidly costly college education) and has to support multiple children, you are crippling the family in poverty- leading to continued lack of education and an increased likelihood of crime as well as many of the other problems faced by the poor.
The sad fact is that where countries are able to use family planning (abortion and contraception) they can control population growth and reduce poverty. This is because they can more adequately limit the number of family members that must be supported on limited incomes. So poor women are told they have to have these babies- despite lack of social services to raise the baby. The impact is felt not just on the woman, but on her family, and through her family on society as well.
(who pays the costs- we do. We have with a growing poor community, increased crime, increased problems in public health, increased addiction rates, despair, depression).
Is this moral? ABortion is a terrible thing. But I think the costs of generation of poverty is even worse- especially for societies which are continuing to cut programs that help poor achieve a better life.
Now you can call me a socialist if you want, or even a communist. I don´t give a flying fuck for labels. But I think inequality in our country is probably the single biggest challenge we face. The fact that the US has one of the hightest levels of inequality in the developed world corresponds to the fact that despite having the most powerful economy, we don´t have the best quality of life, that our longevity is limited, our education is sub par, and a vareity of social ailments that we shouldn´t have in this country.
Republicans gave us the trickle down economics where if you give to the rich, it trickles down to the poor (if in ever declining numbers). It was the Republicans who also gave us corporate welfare and who have used Iraq and Katrina as a means of corporate payoffs. Why? Because at the end of the day the Republicans remain a party of the rich and powerful. Even Evangelicals have been caught wondering why they gained so little from the Bush administration in exchange for their support. And the one institution that exists to offset the imbalance of power in the economy and society (the government) they have been steadily destroying.
And if you look at this group of republican candidates what you see is more Bush policy for the next 4 years. I think the last 8 were enough.
I think we need a US with a better and stronger middle class, where Americans (regardless of origins, race or birthright) have a chance to make the most of themselves. We need a country that promotes innovation and development and not impowerment of a few strong companies. We need more equality and opportunity, not less. And we need effective government to do it.
Given a choice between the two parties, I have to go Democrat. I am not happy with the candidates on either side, but given the alternatives- I will go Democrat.
