He says as he neg-reps me after running away from the argument. Kudos, my man! Way to be a stand up guy. But don't worry - some neg rep's coming right back atcha!
Fair enough. First I'll respond to what you wrote. I agree with everything you've written here. The "War On Poverty" started decades ago, and still hasn't been solved, and it is a difficult problem. I'm a firm believer that programs like "Habitat For Humanity" can go a long way towards solving some of the problems of homelessness, but poverty won't disappear from work done by volunteers alone. Charity is great, but I don't think you can solve this with charity alone. It takes real government programs. However welfare creates a viscious cycle where the recepients don't bother to try to work for a living. That's why I liked Clinton's Welfare To Work program. Personally, I think that in the USA one person living in poverty is too many. I know that's idealistic, but I do believe that one of the greatest responsibilities of a society is to take care of its less fortunate citizens. I would love to see alternative energy sources SERIOUSLY explored. Fossil fuels are horrible, and we need to figure out a way to get around without using them. I also firmly believe that we need to invest more in public transportation infrastructure, but America is such a large country, and so sparesly populated in some areas that public transport isn't an option - you have to let people have their own cars. But I'd like to see them powered by something other than gas. What would you have the workers do in the school, teach the students? I'd rather see teachers paid a real sustainable wage so that people will actually look at teaching as a viable occupation. I don't know for certain, but I'd be willing to be that a lot high school, grade school and middle school teachers view their job as something to do before they get a "real job." That shouldn't be the case. Yeah, it would be tough to see the Republicans embrace anything you wrote. For me, as I wrote above I do think alternative fuels must become a real option, and I also think that building better public transportation in urban areas is important. I work 15 miles away from where I live. The Washington area has a good subway, but it doesn't work for me. I can drive to work in about 25 minutes, but if I took a combination of the Metro and busses, it would take me about 2 hours. Guess which option I take? I also think that some sort of universal health care is very important. Like a single American living in poverty being too many, I think a single American without access to a doctor when he needs it is too many. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't think that letting the health insurance companies decide what's best will solve it.
That is true. Here is an example: The ends (the creation of more jobs which help reduce poverty) do NOT justify the means (helping the oh so evil business owners like myself with tax breaks, deregulation, tort reform and so on).
That'll show 'em. Really, neither one of you deserved negative rep. It was heated, but it wasn't trolling.
Interesting ideas. It is a noble idea, but as somebody who's lived in South America, let me tell you that it won't work. Some people over there are loaded with money, they see every day the kind of misery and poverty that you don't see in America, and it doesn't make them any more charitable than the American rich. In fact, I don't have figures but I think US rich in general are more charitable to the poor than South American rich, even though they are less exposed to real poverty. Yes. I think we need to take the environmental issue away from the radical anti-business crowd and make it mainstream. Perhaps we should have a panel of scientists and experts to do a study and give us the true facts. Then we can educate the consumer and hopefully that will put pressure on business to act. If we could have an independent non partisan panel to study 9/11, why not a panel to study the envornmental issues, which in the long term could be much more serious than terrorism. I for one would listen. I mean, if some hippie radical tells me that I should not drive an SUV I will tell him to eat ********, but if a serious panel reports that it is true that our driving SUVs has serious consequences I will listen. That is a good idea potentially. But we won't know until it is tried. Probably a pilot program could be done somewhere in a small scale to see if it really works.
Thanks Mike - truly awesome post all around. My responses: I am talking about changes that are a lot more sweeping than HFH, which I think is a great program. I'm talking about redefining how we develop our cities, and long-term, how we live. Like a lot of really complex problems, sometimes you have to go after the issues using a multiple-pronged attack. I think making our cars more efficient, either using gas or something else, is one route, and a good one. Tact A. Making it so less and less people have to drive at all is another good attack. Tact B. Putting people of all economic classes close together where they have to face each others' realities. Tact C. And so on - I'm sure there are a lot of others I am missing. Partly modeled, if I am not mistaken, after the Mormon church's Welfare program. Great Democrat ideas can come from even a fundamentalist faith. I'd say that there should be avenues to get out of poverty for anyone who is willing to put in the work to get out of it themselves. I'd totally embrace that ideal. Does it have to be either/or Mike? Let's say you are a Republican (I know - it's a stretch, but work with me) making a pretty healthy income at a big company. November comes around, and yet again, the schools are asking for more money. No thanks - you're sick of them coming back to the well - and you emphatically vote no. But when you get to work the next day, your company encourages (read strongly compels) you to volunteer in the school 2 hours a week because they get a tax break for it. You go down, ask what you can do to help, and they find out that you're a programmer who may be able to tutor some kids who are struggling and lagging behind in math. You build a relationship with these kids, their parents, and their teachers. One year later, yet again the schools are asking for money, except now you've seen what's going on in those schools. You know exactly why they're asking for it, and how it will make things better. Think you might vote differently? Healthcare is tough. Really tough. I really don't know what the solution(s) are there, but I love that this thread has developed into one where people are talking about ideals and alternative methods. Cool stuff.
My wife's a teacher, and she certainly doesn't look at it as something to do before she get's a "real job". Teaching is her profession, and she's extremely good at it, and she's proud to be a teacher, and she will likely always be a teacher. She teaches sixth grade by the way. And I think most of her colleagues hold the same attitude she does. So I think your off base in your assumption. That said, I think your intention is in the right place. Teachers most certainly deserve to be paid better, so that more of them can be retained, and more quality people will be attracted to the profession. Plus a raise to my wife would certainly help our family budget!
It is cool stuff. All that partisan bickering that goes on here in BS politics forums can be fun. But I much prefer this kind of conversation. Nutmeg, I'm sure you're a true fiscal conservative (perhaps conservative socially too). But you seem like a liberal at heart.
I've seen it work. It does require some enforcement. I'm not saying that great land-use planning is the panacea for all that ails the USA. It is also largely cultural. I haven't lived in S America, but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express down there. Or something like it. It seems like there is a culture of corruption down there, and people have become desensitized to the misery around them. Not the case here in America. I have lived in Mexico, and some of the poverty and living conditions I saw there literally sickened me. It's more than that. We have to help people realize that a healthy environment is one that we all believe in, and that taking steps to get there may not be such a terrible way to live. It's not. And we have to everyone - individuals, communities, and businesses accountable when they screw the environment over. Sadly, the lobbyists have both parties in their pocket on this. GM executives are not interested in you not owning two cars. The union workers aren't either. It scares them. Which is why bold, well-thought out methods are needed. I gave one example where it is being tried, and apparently it is working very well. I'd like to see it piloted on the civilian side, though.
How about this: removing Saddam from power does not justify over 1000 young Americans dead, thousands more seriously wounded, and a destabilized Middle East.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. You wanna know why there's a McCain cult on the left? Because, unique among Bush, Rove, DeLay, and Frist, we believe he wants to solve problems and make America better. And that's why Clinton was so beloved by many members of that same cult. Yeah, Clinton cared about the politics of things too, but he sincerely wanted to solve problems. It sounds harsh, but I really, really believe that Bush doesn't want to make America better. He doesn't want to solve problems. If he did, he'd revisit his policies on taxes and, like Reagan, realize they didn't work.
Y'all will just have to trust me on this, cuz I don't have a link, but studies say that the single variable most highly correlated with good schools is parental involvement. That also usually correlates with high incomes, but in cases where you can find schools "against the grain," parental involvement is more important than high parental incomes. You want to know a constellation of issues that is ripe for exploiting by Dems? TIME. People believe (I think righly) that they don't have as much time as their parents did. Screw money, middle class people want more time. I have two very small children, and a reason I've considered moving to Kenya is that in Kenya, kids go outside and play. Here, they don't. If I want my boy to play baseball or soccer, I've got to enroll him in a league. He's 4. That's not right. That's a destructive way to construct a society. The lack of opportunities for children to play costs middle class parents so much time!!
The thing is, Democrats in the White House, or controlling Congess (and especially both) correlate with better economic growth than Republican power. That really needs to be a message the Dems drive home, but each congressman and senator is an island unto himself. But just imagine an ad that says, over the last 10 years, we had better growth under Clinton than Bush. Want to go back 25 years? We had better growth rate under Dems than GOPs. Wanna go back 50 years? 75 years? Same thing. (In the ad, you'd provide the actual numbers.) You wanna know what's wrong with Kansas? Kansas doesn't know this.
I think the term you're looking for is "compassionate conservative." Most conservatives I know fit this category, even (perhaps especially) the religious ones. They care about poverty. They care about the quality of education. They care about racism and human rights. But they don't always agree with the methods employed by the left to remedy the problems: redistributing wealth through the tax code, throwing more money at failing schools that have no accountability, affirmative action programs based on race, etc. While there are certainly exceptions, conservatives are compassionate and do care about poverty, education, racism, injustices, and so on. I agree with Nutmeg's general point that conservatives are on board with the ideals, just not the methods of the left.
You are absolutely right about parental involvement as a link to educational success. As both my wife and I are in education for over 20 years, there is a direct correlation between parental involvement and success in education. A correlary to that is the fact that kids will do better when there are 2 parents involved and 1 of them is at home taking care of the kids. Day care kids do not do as well as kids who have a parent waiting for them when they get home. Don't ask for a link, I just know it from years of experience. From there it is just a short jump to the fact that educated people usually make more money than non-educated people so there TENDS to be a correlation there but it is not the core issue. The hard part is convincing poor people, with no education, that EDUCATION is the key. Inner city parents, who have no job, also have no excuse for not spending time with their children to help them with their education but they are only following a long pattern. And that is yet another topic. Time is the perceived issue and a critical one. And it cuts across economic boundaries. Upper income families typically have nannies raising kids who have no idea how to work and still have time for the family. They just buy it all. Buy the uniform. Buy the coach. Buy the league registration. Buy. Buy. Buy. Gone are the days when kids went outside to play. Today parents are so paranoid about somebody molesting their kids if they go out alone that it is no wonder the kids stay in all day playing video games until it is time for soccer practice... But enough of the rant already, you do make a good point. Parents need to recognize that the most important time is the time they spend with their kids. Period.
Well, I've seen studies (don't ask for a link, either) showing that there is no correlation whatsoever. And my "years of experience" as an A-student who went to day care and was a latchkey kid are just as good as yours.
Maybe, but that's not filling that hole in your heart bojendyk, now is it? Not without, *sniff* real parents........... why didn't you love me mommy, why? Er, sorry.
This is a complete sack of $hit. The reason you are not as successful as the conservatives is that (a) you have few real ideas and (b) the ideas that you DO have, people aren't buying. You have the Times, The Nation, and a host of other liberal news, PR outlets, and dominate the Blogosphere. The big 3 networks were DESPERATE to see Kerry elected. You have Hollywood on your side. You have media advantages, the ability to raise money, and big pockets supporters. And think tanks?? You have lots of stinkin' think tanks -- a nice sampling of leftist/liberal think tanks is below. The problem?? The left is choppin' but no chips are flyin'. Good luck. AARP Public Policy Institute Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Center for American Progress Center for Arts and Culture Center for Economic Policy Analysis (CEPA) Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) Center for Full Employment and Price Stability Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) Center for Policy Alternatives (CPA) Center for Public Policy Priorities Center for Urban Policy Research (CUPR) Center for the Study of Social Policy Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) Center on Hunger and Poverty Center on Policy Initiatives (CPI) Demos Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Financial Markets Center Global Development And Environment Institute (G-DAE) The Independent Institute Institute for Policy Research Institute for Public Policy and Social Research Institute for the Study of Homelessness and Poverty Institute for the Study of Information Technology and Society The Institute on Education and the Economy (IEE) Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) John F. Kennedy, Jr. Institute for Worker Education Joint Center for Poverty Research Levy Economics Institute MDRC Maternal and Child Health Policy Research Center National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families (CPR) National Priorities Project New America Foundation OMB Watch Pathways Mapping Initiative Political Research Associates Poverty and Race Research Action Council (PRRAC) Project on Defense Alternatives (PDA) Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) Social Policy Action Network
That's true. I think I shall now go take some heroin and join a gang. All I wanted was a Pepsi, and she wouldn't get it for me.
You probably already know this, Dave, but better land-use planning can make huge inroads into that problem, too. How much time does the average American waste in their car a day, a week, a month, or a year? If you live near an urban center - which the huge majority does - you spend a ton of time in a car. More than you want to know, I promise you. Now replace that driving time with walking time. In Spain, I took a 20 minute walk twice a day. It felt great. It was my commute. Along the way, I passed - and I think I am right on this, as I counted it in my head - 17 different parks. Every single one of them had an area where kids could go down and play soccer, basketball, or whatever. How long does it take your kid to get to a park where he can meet his buddies and play? I bet you he doesn't even have that option. In America, we've lost our sense of community. We've been developed right out of it. If Dems would take this issue and run with it, I'd never vote Republican again in my lifetime. But they're not.
Please, please PLEASE tell me you understand the slight differences between, say, land planning in a small country many of who's cities were builty prior to cars and the US? You want to try getting people to commute by walking in Cleveland, or Texas? I walk to work in NYC, sure. And actually, I pass some parks (although they're not many - not in midtown). But I've lived in Europe, and I have to say, I didn't feel any more community there when I was living in an apartment building. Or, as my colleagues from our Madrid office would tell you, Democrats - we now like communities. This issue is like gun control. Not having assault rifles in Manhattan makes more sense than muzzling carrot top. Taking away shotguns from Tom Coburn voting Sooners makes less sense than feeding Dennis Miller crystal meth. This is not a national issue. You can't recreate communities in places where you have to drive half a mile to get to the next house, or when your friends are the kids who live in your apartment building by plopping a park next to it.
The left's knee-jerk reaction to a view with which it disagrees. The conservative in question is either (a) lying or (b) a moron. Self-evident. No need to even debate it. The intelligentsia has spoken! Incidentally, I wasn't aware that "without personal attacks" was taken out of this forum's tagline.