Not a lot of time to write today, but I thought I’d post some initial thoughts:
- I would say roughly 70% of the 2,000 people there were opposed to what they think is the Democratic health care bill. 30% were in favor of it, a smaller portion spoke positively of the so called “public option”. Liberals should feel good, there were many of us there. Buck McKeon heard us.
- The LaRouchites had made the trip and were inciting the crowd against the Federal Reserve and passing out literature with a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache
- Health care for illegals, calls for investigations into ACORN, bailout angst, and general fiscal conservative issues really brought the crowd to their feet. They stomped on the bleachers. Must have been frightening to some liberals, but not me
- Lots of elderly people were there
- Several asked what they could do to “kill” the Democrat’s health plan
- No birthers (sigh) but a few references to death panels (one woman: “The insurance companies are the death panels!”)
- Lots of teachers and others employed in education spoke and, like Lynn Vakay of the Signal, derided ‘socialistic’ policies and government run programs
- A 30 year old woman with dual Brit/American citizenship got told to go home to England by a woman sitting next to me when she said she liked the NHS
- Buck McKeon asked “Why the rush, why are we doing it now?” and an elderly man shouted out, “Because people are dying Buck!”
Overall, it wasn’t a very informative meeting. Buck spoke for about 10 minutes before handing over the mic to the crowd. As I predicted, he brought up tort reform and selling insurance across state lines, but he didn’t really make an argument against the public option. He did let everyone speak at length, and many points of view were heard.
But, for the most part, it felt more like a pep rally than an informative town hall meeting, but that was to be expected.
Loading ...
If you’d like any video footage of the Town Hall meeting for your blog, I taped everything up till Buck’s pee break.
Thanks. I taped a lot too but then ran out of film at the end. I’ll plug it in and review it tonight.
Thanks for attending . . . and it appears the ratio of Repubs to Dems was the standard 2 to 1, more or less.
But since Buck has never voted against a RNC position during his entire time in office, I figured why was my time at this . . .
I’ve given him my heads up with phone calls but don’t expect anything from him.
He noted he’s positioning himself for his ‘government paid’ retirement such that I doubt if he’ll anger the RNC with any type of bipartisan ‘action’ versus just the rhetorical musings saying he wants a ‘bipartisan’ solution.
His voting record simply doesn’t support his words.
Anyway, if you’re reading this Buck: ALL I WANT IS THE SAME PUBLIC OPTION YOU HAVE AS MY CONGRESSMAN PAID FOR BY ME, THE TAXPAYER, NO MORE, MORE LESS.
The biggest argument against the public option was brought up by Congressman McKeon in the first few minutes of his introduction. We, as a nation, just can’t afford it. The fact that the total accumulated national debt from Washington to G.W. Bush will be doubled under this administration in the next 5 years, and tippled in the next 10 is unconscionable. Make no mistake, the public option will increase the debt.
When McKeon said we have the greatest health care in the world, this is a true statement. This does not mean there are not serious problems that need to be resolved. The Republicans free market approach is one viable option for helping to lower costs for the consumer.
If the Democrats succeed in dismantling the existing system to bring on the true 7 million who can’t get coverage, they will succeed in making health care equally bad for everyone.
Just got done reading The Signal’s story on the Town Hall. The tone of the story makes it appear that more than half of the people were in favor of the public option. The people quoted in the story were overwhelmingly on the side of a public option, when the majority in the room were clearly on the side of McKeon. The story points out all the jeers that were directed at the ‘public option’ folks, when in reality there were jeers and rude outbursts from the other side too.
Why was this story so biased. Oh I know why. The real reporter of the story was Bruce McFarland, not Brian Charles as stated in the by-line. I observed Bruce making an effort to photograph and interview every person who spoke for the public option. One 0f the quotes in the story comes from ‘Michael Kulka of the Democratic Alliance for Action’ that is led by Bruce McFarland. Was Brain Charles even in attendance????
Shame on The Signal for such bias in reporting. They are no better than most of the other leftist rags in this country.
Shame o
Jim,
Can one conclude that the Signal, the Chamber of Commerce influenced Signal, would like to see the burden of health care taken off of the shoulders of business?
Taxpayers pay for the enterprise zone benefits handed to business. Now does business want the taxpayers to cover cost of health care?
I believe some reform is necessary, but not a total dismantling of the current system.
Jim: We, as a nation, just can’t afford it.
Why is that so?
Why can’t millions of Americans get health care?
And if we don’t solve that problem, how do we fix the surge in the emergency rooms?
I agree, that we’re going to have to raise our taxes to provide ‘public services’ that some can’t afford and to ease the federal deficit.
Or we could start cutting 3 of the ‘big four’ government programs: Defense, social security or medicare.
The 4th can’t be cut . . . that’s because it’s the ‘interest on the debt’ that require the debt be reduced . . . requiring more taxes.
At the end of the day, the whole issue revolves around the ‘demand’ that the public makes on government but no politician of either party has the courage to address that other than through slogans or folklore.
And Jim, all I want from McKeon is the same public option he gets as a congressman from the taxpayer (me).
Indy,
if McKeon is put in the same insurance policy as you, post any new Democrat pushed plan, he will most likely have less coverage. But at least you will get the parity you seek. Additionally, the taxpayer (me) will be paying for you and Bucky to have insurance.
McKeon addressed his coverage to the group. He is not getting a ‘public option’. What he gets is similar to what most government employees and employees in private industry get. That is a health insurance plan from an insurance company that the company ( or Government) pays into with the employee sharing in the premium and making co-payments when using the service. I don’t begrudge any government worker getting a salary and benefits at taxpayer expense. Where else does the compensation come from? It is not a logical conclusion that because we provide government workers with health care that now the government is responsible for providing care to everyone in the nation.
Jim,
You are correct about employer coverage. I have read about the government plan. My employer sponsored plan is as good as or better than McKeon’s.
Some would like to see the good benefits that many currently enjoy, and have worked to have, dragged down so that others can be covered.
I think the term is socialized medicine! The upcoming elections are going to be real interesting.
Cash,
Buck and his fellow politicians have the insurance we all want . . . yet he feels that we can’t share in his good fortune . . . why not?
Why should our leaders have better insurance than we have at our expense?
The only difference Jim is that Buck gets his insurance from my taxes and he’s got a much better policy that many Amreicans including the 40 million plus that have no insurance.
And Buck’s not a government worker . . . he’s an elected politician. There’s a big difference.
And while many conservatives are against the Obama plan say that some Americans don’t want to purchase insurance . . . well yeah . . . if it cost to much.
But sadly, nobody is talking about the cost drivers . . . be they age demographics, technology, end of life, . . . just more political slogans one way or other.
But Jim, why can’t so many Americans afford health insurance?
I wonder how many attendees actually have read the bill. I bet most just listened to Rush, O’Reilly, etc, and repeat the buzzwords and lies.
And with all the delays the ‘Pubs have introdiced, and all the health care industry money BOTH sides have taken, the bill is now so watered down and turned 180 degrees into a insurance company gift bill, it’s dead and Obama shoudl give it up for this year. He should have the leadership to swallow this defeat, and try again next year. Let all that insurance money go to waste, maybe next year their stockholders will think twice about electing boards that throw money at our government like this… monry that shoudl be in dividends or better patient care.
I tend to agree spineflower . . . it makes little difference if the main changes don’t help the majority of Americans.
For example, the ‘existing condition’ issue.
If the health companies have to issue you a policy with an existing condition, they can charge such a high rate that makes that option worthless.
The existing condition issue defeats the whole purpose of insurance where you ‘spread the risk’.
The reason it’s an issue now is that it hurts health care company profits . . . thus we see the sloganized reponse from Repubs saying that 80%+ of the public likes their policies . . . well, yeah . . . but wait till they get sick . . . then they find out they are screwed . . . thus, we only get ‘half’ the issue with the slogan . . . ‘not the whole truth’.
Why should our leaders have better insurance than we have at our expense?
I am not sure they should, but why should they have to live with a reduction in coverage just because of your want?
Are you saying that you are OK with seeing the benefits of other taken for them just so you can have better coverage given to you? Seems rather selfish to me.
Indy:
Why can’t so many Americans afford a house? Why can’t so many Americans afford a Harvard education? The list could continue………
Health care is by nature expensive, and even though things can be done to reduce the cost, it will always be a relatively expensive part of our existence, as is housing, automobiles, etc. The fact that it is expensive doesn’t turn it into something the government should provide. There is nothing in our Constitution that says because something is expensive it should be provided by the government.
Cash,
Shouldn’t our leaders be ‘equal’ with those that fund their benefits?
And you completely misstake my intentions . . . I want all Americans to have ‘equal’ healthcare realizing that some Americans will always make more money than others . . . that’s just the nature of free market capitalism.
“Free Markets’ are fine but they don’t provide all citizens the same opportunities nor incomes. Realizing that is just an excercise in reality . . . nothing more.
In closing, if Buck had, being on or about my age, had to go into the ‘private insurance’ field, he’s see that I’m paying about $1,000 per month . . . why not share the reality with those that represent us?
Jim,
It’s true . . . that housing and private education are items that will always be unequal . . . but health care is a bit different in that everyone American should have access to a care standard that is equal for everybody . . . with the private luxuries of bigger houses and private education left to market if you will.
It’s good to keep in mind ever though ‘government’ is abstracted by conservatives to be an entity apart from ‘us’ when in fact, it is ‘us’. We are the government.
We can choose to provide certain basic services like health care for all Americans regardless of income.
You disagree . . . that’s part of the debate.
As far as the Constitution goes, from the document:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
While it’s true the general welfare words can be seen in different lights, that part of the decision that ‘we the people’ get to consider.
If a majority of Americans want health care for all, would go accept that decision?
Jeff:
How many at the Town Hall had a BMI above 30; in other words the fat asses that are driving the country to ruin.
Tim Myers:
You seem to be one very arrogant man. You really put off an air that you are better than everyone else, and you have since you started your little commentary on the Signal when you moved to this valley many years ago. So you think the ones stepping up to challenge the complete takeover of our lives by the current administration are ‘fat asses’. What an ignorant arrogant ass you are to think that.
Indy “And you completely mistake my intentions”
I don’t think I do. What you want is socialism. I favor see your situation improved but not at the expense of others.
Jim,
Timmy may seem like an arrogant man, but he is really just a glorified accountant. He is undoubtedly happy that his once fat ass is not quite as fat as it one was. Jim, let Timmy feel good about himself for a year, that is about how long he has before his fat ass will return! You know he is kidding about fat asses running the country into the ground. Obama’s BMI is probably 18 and he is not a fat ass. So unless Mrs. Obama is telling her hubby how to run the country, there are no fat asses involved.
Thanks Cash – with a little introspection I know I can be a bit arrogant at times too (but never ignorant
). So don’t take it too hard Timmy.
I’ve also gone through my own fat ass period. I lost 50 lbs at the beginning of last year, gradually put back on 30, but now I’m in a weight loss contest at work and have already shed 8 of the 30.
Cash: What you want is socialism. I favor see your situation improved but not at the expense of others.
Interestingly, the word ‘socialism’ is the new popular slogan for conservatives and thus repeating it often enough in a negative context seeks to make it ‘toxic’ in the same manner that the world ‘liberal’ as bastardized since the Contract with America put forth by Newt Gingrich.
Unfortunately, Americans have come to accept certain types of ‘public services’ (socialism if you will) like Fire, Police, Public Schools, helping the sick and elderly, all of which you seek to put into a ‘negative’ mindset with the word socialism. Why?
Can’t we as Americans decide where our money goes? Do we need strategist at the RNC to make all those decisions?
Likewise, we see the most powerful Americans who use our nation’s resources including our labor making tens of millions of dollars ‘per person’ . . . and yet where’ s the negative word for that? Greed perhaps? Is anybody really ‘worth’ $5,000 an hour like a recent executive at one of the health care companies?
Socialism is simply ‘public services’ and yes, I can understand why folks like yourself would rather keep ‘your money’ than provide assistance for various government programs like schools and health and welfare.
But it’s not only you making the call . . .
Indy,
your argument is getting very old.
I have paid many many dollars in taxes, so please do not suggest that I am not willing to help provide the services you listed.
Providing you will health care is not something I support. I would also not support having to sell my house so that you could have one of equal value. I would not support having to sell my more valuable car so you could have one of equal value. I would not what to have to take my daughter out of a private college so that your child could attend a school of equal value.
At want point would you draw the line Indy? When our country looks like North Korea?
The word socialism only came in to vogue when Obama began with his socialist agenda.
I agree with you that there are problems with the health care system and that improvements are necessary.
President Kenedy was described as a liberal president. It would not be accurate to call the Democratic Party of today ‘liberal’. The agenda of Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Etc is far far to the left of ‘liberal’ and closer to Marxist.
Jim,
Can you give me some examples to which you address.
Cash writes: I have paid many many dollars in taxes, so please do not suggest that I am not willing to help provide the services you listed.
One of the issues Cash that gets in way of discussing taxes is the item that indeed most Americans ‘pay taxes’. The question is then: did you pay enough.
One of the easiest examples of a ‘line of sight’ to ‘services demanded’ is public education.
Each child cost the taxpayers as a group about $11,000 per child per year in k-12. For a 13 year ‘tour’ (k through 12 if you will), the total taxes required is $143,000.
Most folks I know don’t pay anywhere near this amount . . .
but tell me they are overtaxed.
And understandably, our leaders don’t disclose the ‘cost’ which would provide some deterrent in terms of ‘services demanded’.
So the question for this example is did you send any kids to pubic schools, how many, and did you ‘cover the cost’ even though you paid ‘many many dollars?
Jim Farley says: “President Kenedy was described as a liberal president”
cindy says: “Jim, Can you give me some examples to which you address [sic]”
Start here: “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.”
Indy,
If your numbers are based on today’s cost without adjustment, they are meaningless. And do not forget we are taxed beyond what Uncle Sam demands of us.
If most of the folks you know do not pay the tax amount you indicated, then I can see why you see no problem thinking it is OK for others to pay for your health care. It is also clear that you are troubled that some may make more money than you and that for some reason that is a sin and should be adjusted to benefit you.
Jim Farley:
I was pretty much a conservative when I had a fat ass BMI over 31 and when it fell below 25 (seven years thank you very much) I got more progressive. Coincidence? I think not.
Oh this is so funny
“At want point would you draw the line Indy? When our country looks like North Korea? ” Why go that far to look for examples?
I am certainly not speaking for Indy, but maybe we can draw the line when the country looks more like Norway, or even Sweden.
Cash writes: If your numbers are based on today’s cost without adjustment, they are meaningless.
I: Well, why not use a CPI deflator and just run your own numbers. From a recent discussion with a person with 5 kids in k-12, they were telling me they are paying taxes that are too high . . . having heard conservative politicians recite this assertion many many times.
When I noted the cost of public education as I did to you, this person was taken back realizing she wasn’t paying anywhere near the demands she was placing on government . . . thus without the ‘cost’, she was promoting her view that was incorrect.
Sadly, that the case for many people . . . saying they are paying too much when they aren’t paying enough.
Cash: And do not forget we are taxed beyond what Uncle Sam demands of us.
I: I understand the theoretical view you put forth here . . . many conservatives share your position but the state is providing services to many Americans who simply are ‘free riding’ off of other taxpayers . . . but nevertheless believing they are paying too much. We’ve got to get that straightened out for clarity.
Cash: If most of the folks you know do not pay the tax amount you indicated, then I can see why you see no problem thinking it is OK for others to pay for your health care. It is also clear that you are troubled that some may make more money than you and that for some reason that is a sin and should be adjusted to benefit you.
I: The points you make are not related.
First, if people are unaware of the cost of services they are demanding yet believing they are paying higher taxes than is the case, this isn’t helping anyone . . . and in fact, for education, it hurts the students as we see as more and more kids are ‘crammed’ into a classroom with the parents believing they are paying too high of taxes when in fact, they aren’t paying enough creating the overcrowding.
The connection to health care is simply that Americans should pay what they demand if indeed they knew the cost (another topic for discussion . . . ).
For Medicare, the average per person on this is a cost of about $8,000 per year, $16,000 per year for a couple.
If a couple lives say 10 years on this program, did that couple pay into Medicare $160,000 now being spent on their behalf prior to retiring into the system?
Finally, I’m not concerned at all about what people make other than understanding if they pay enough in taxes for what they demand from government.
With the current situation that slogans dominate our political discussions in this area, it’s understandable why people are confused. And it’s disturbing that the party that promotes lower taxes doesn’t disclose the cost of services thus utilizing the most powerful ‘demand reducer’ in the free market, that being ‘price’. That would be true ‘fiscal conservatism’.
SCVTamaleman : Jim Farley says: “President Kennedy: “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.”
Yes, I would think that JFK if alive would want Americans to hold themselves ‘accountable’ for the services they ‘demand’ from government by reasonably paying for same.
I would also add that economist who’ve studied the Kennedy ‘tax cuts’ realized that the tax cutting only produced about 5% of the increased economic output cited from the same tax cuts . . . thus not covering the lost revenue due to the tax cuts thus creating higher deficits . . . something even President Reagan overlooked.
The other 95% of the growth was due to the increase of the money supply at the time . . .
In any event, it’s obvious that ‘sloganized’ leadership is failing the public . . . people think they are paying too high taxes yet can’t even articulate the cost of services they themselves demand from government.
That’s going to change . . .
Indy
Cash: If most of the folks you know do not pay the tax amount you indicated, then I can see why you see no problem thinking it is OK for others to pay for your health care. It is also clear that you are troubled that some may make more money than you and that for some reason that is a sin and should be adjusted to benefit you.
I was suggesting that you and your friends may be in a lower income bracket, and therefore believe your are entitled to have someone else pay for your health care.
Seems you are now suggesting that we all be taxed to the max rather than saying enough is enough to this entitlement mentality. I get the cost issue, and the costs are definitely out of control, thanks to the government. You seem to be saying that more of the same bad government programs is a good things. You can’t have it both ways.
I am done here but before is go, just out of curiosity, where were you born?
Timothy Myers:
Being that you are the expert on numbers I guess I have to trust your analysis that reducing your BMI makes you more progressive. That being said I find it hard to believe. While I don’t even begin to have a clue what my personal BMI is I do know that my weight loss/gain has not changed my political position. In fact, I think when I am thinner I am more conservative because I am happier. My observation is that those on the left seem to be less happy overall than those on the right.
Indy says: “I would think that JFK if alive would want Americans to hold themselves ‘accountable’ for the services they ‘demand’ from government by reasonably paying for same.”
Right, a position which is contrary to current liberal thought, it is more of a conservative position. You asked for an example of how JFK would not be a “liberal” by today’s standards and I gave you one, then you go off on one of your 180-degree-completely-off-the-topic-out-of-left-field-gee-look-how-smart-I-am tangents instead of responding to the topic at hand.
Somethings never change.
May God bless you SCVTamaleman for ‘taking the baton’ on the JFK vs. todays Democrats. You’ve blown Indy out of the water!
Jim Farley:
Google “BMI Calculator” and put in your height and weight. If you BMI is over 30 you are an obese fat ass. If you are between 25 and 30 you are borderline fat ass. Under 25 you are stylin, particularly if you are over 40.
Or, tell me your height and weight and I will tell you if you are a fat ass.
29.1 – looks like I’m a borderline fat-ass. Even if I hit my goal of 187 by Thanksgiving I’ll be at 26.1 and still borderline. Is there no hope?????
Jim Farley:
So close. Do you exercise? Can’t control your weight without regular exercise, just ask Oprah.
Cash: I was suggesting that you and your friends may be in a lower income bracket, and therefore believe your are entitled to have someone else pay for your health care.
There will always be cases where some Americans earn less and thus can’t afford certain basic services including paying directly for the public education of their children.
We as society have decided, for example, to subsidize those kids who parents can’t afford the total cost.
At present, there are no limits to how many kids any family can send to public school thus creating the taxing dilemma you suggest.
In any event, do you agree that all kids are entitled to a public education funded by all taxpayers?
Cash: Seems you are now suggesting that we all be taxed to the max rather than saying enough is enough to this entitlement mentality. I get the cost issue, and the costs are definitely out of control, thanks to the government. You seem to be saying that more of the same bad government programs is a good things. You can’t have it both ways.
You’re hitting all the right questions in this paragraph but the problem is that the lack of ‘planning’ by our ‘leaders’ creates the uncertainty in your words.
Americans should be willing to tax themselves for the services they both ‘demand and expect’ from government as witnessed by the laws voted into being by majority votes by our elected officials. That’s all I’m saying . . . but this simply reality is distorted by slogans and folklore so it’s understandable that so much uncertainty exist.
The out of control spending as you suggest is a byproduct of both citizens ignorance with respect to the cost of demands they place on themselves through government and the lack of planning and information sharing by our elected leaders . . . who simply won’t confront the public with reality and choose to recite simple minded slogans that don’t address reality.
That’s why we the citizens have to regain control of our government from many of the self serving politicians that are running it into the ground from both parties.
Cash: I am done here but before is go, just out of curiosity, where were you born?
San Fernando Valley . . . lived here in southern California for most of my life exclusing a few year while a kid in central California.
SCVTamaleman : Right, a position which is contrary to current liberal thought, it is more of a conservative position. You asked for an example of how JFK would not be a “liberal” by today’s standards and I gave you one, then you go off on one of your 180-degree-completely-off-the-topic-out-of-left-field-gee-look-how-smart-I-am tangents instead of responding to the topic at hand. Somethings never change.
It will always appear to a ideologue of both parties that once you start understanding the ‘drivers’ of our funding issues with government that as you noted, appear ‘off topic’.
I can understand that completely with the absolute emersion into sloganized recitals from both political parties believing that you can actually manage government and our nation’s resources with simple slogans as the one you noted for JFK.
As I noted with respect to public education, religious conservatives here in SCV-land believe they can send ‘unlimited’ kids to our public schools for ‘lower taxes’.
That’s simply nonsense yet it’s perpetuated by our two legislators.
Further, since Runner/Smyth won’t publicly disclose the cost of services demanded, they create the confusion to which you are left in.
That’s why it’s important that citizens start discussing these types of funding issues beyond their own leaders who sadly, for reasons unclear to me, simply refuse to deal with reality and instead repeated the ideology based slogans that you see repeated over and over.
With this lack of insight, foresight, and simple common sense, it’s clear to me why our politics is so screwed up. So I get what you’re trying to say . . .
cindy: “As I noted with respect to public education, religious conservatives here in SCV-land believe they can send ‘unlimited’ kids to our public schools for ‘lower taxes’”
Absolute horseshit.
Most “religious conservatives here in SCV-land” send their kids to private schools because the public schools suck. But you just keep believing what you want.
SCVTamaleman says: Absolute horseshit. Most “religious conservatives here in SCV-land” send their kids to private schools because the public schools suck. But you just keep believing what you want.
Interesting disclosure that most religious conservatives send their kids to private school. Any evidence to support that assertion?
Statewide, less than 8.3% of school age children in 2008 are in private schools (http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/documents/factbook2009.pdf , page 103 )
You said ‘most’ . . . does that mean more than 50%?
And what does that say about you . . . as if only ‘your kids’ and not the welfare of ‘all kids’ is important. This observation is something more voters need to understand about strong willed conservatives here in our state.
But this theme of yours seem to run through most of the conservatives here in that they see ‘only themselves’ and not the ‘greater community’. And that’s unfortunate.
As far as the public schools ‘sucking’, that’s at the feet of Runner/Smyth who continue with a ‘slogan based approach’ to running our government which creates this situation.
Their recent ‘vows’ not to increase taxes for any reason during the recession has created even more problems with our public school being under-funded . . . as if kids can ‘wait out’ a recession while still in school. Obviously, that’s complete nonsense yet Runner/Smyth support their decision with pride!
We need to get to reality with our government and the services ‘demanded’ by the public.
But please, any documentation to support your assertion that ‘most’ religious conservatives send their kids to private schools would be appreciated and appropriate.
Tim Myers:
I exercise indeed. As we are neighbors, if you are out and about you will see me walking regularly around the Northbridge area. Today I had a later than normal start time so I knocked out six miles this morning.
Thanks for the info on BMI. I’m now shooting for 25. That being said I will fight any urges to shift to the left as you did.
cIndy says: “Any evidence to support that assertion?”
“You said ‘most’ . . . does that mean more than 50%?”
“any documentation to support your assertion that ‘most’ religious conservatives send their kids to private schools would be appreciated and appropriate”
Sorry princess, that’s not how it works. Remember when you said: “religious conservatives here in SCV-land believe they can send ‘unlimited’ kids to our public schools for ‘lower taxes’”
You said that without qualification; no “most”, no “some”, no “a large percentage of”, you might have well had said “all”. (fans of reading between the lines would surely arrive at that).
Since you made the first blaket statement, why don’t you share “any documentation to support your ASSertion” that “religious conservatives here in SCV-land believe they can send ‘unlimited’ kids to our public schools for ‘lower taxes’”.
SCVTamaleman :Since you made the first blanket statement, why don’t you share “any documentation to support your ASSertion” that “religious conservatives here in SCV-land believe they can send ‘unlimited’ kids to our public schools for ‘lower taxes’”.
That’s almost too easy . . . we have a ‘fixed rate tax code’ that based on any given income, your tax rates are fixed.
So if Family A has 2 kids and Family B had 5 kids, both at the same income, Family B is ‘free riding’ on the ‘fixed tax’ system against Family A . . . and I don’t see any citizen movement here to correct this fiscal inequality.
And that’s the current tax code . . . and to make matters worse, Family B gets more ‘child tax credits’ making the inequity even greater!!!!
What’s fair about that?
Thus, when this topic comes up, you find that many religious conservatives have large families at similar incomes and still ‘cry’ that their taxes are too high . . .
But in fairness to even them, they have no leadership from our legislators . . . who sadly just pander with the ‘anti-tax’ slogans independent of the actual ‘demand’ reality in play.
Until that changes, we’ll be in this ‘anti-tax’ pissing contest and the only winners are those that ‘demand’ more than the ‘fixed rates’ are able to provide and thus we see the kids in ‘public schools’ suffering . . . and then you, make the assertion that public schools are bad . . . and indeed many are but that’s a result of the income tax inequity as well as the unlinking of the ‘demands’ for services based on income and the present tax system.
I realize how much it hurts to see this reality but until we as a society get past the euphemistic and unrealistic slogans that dominate our politics, our nation’s future is in jeopardy as we’ve seen over the last 30 years or so where the public schools are still dropping out 30%+ of the students . . . as if poorly educated people can produce the productivity that permits overall wealth creation in our society.
And I don’t see any politician of any party talking about this . . . choosing instead to pander . . . and your remarks are a good reason for this where you character assassinate the person bringing the ‘reality’ into the discussion.
And again, we all lose . . . doesn’t sound like a winning strategy, does it?
This is comical. You are incapable of answering a simple question. You do this every single time one of your statements is exposed for the horseshit that it is.
you said: “religious conservatives here in SCV-land believe they can send ‘unlimited’ kids to our public schools for ‘lower taxes’”, and when asked to back it up your evidence to back this up is: “Thus, when this topic comes up, you find that many religious conservatives have large families at similar incomes and still ‘cry’ that their taxes are too high . . . ”
That’s it? That’s the best you got? Pathetic. You might as well say a little bird told you.
Honestly, are you retarded? You can tell us the truth; it certainly wouldn’t lower our opinion of you.
hey, I thought we took the pledge?