HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » hfojvt » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: South - Carolina and Dakota
Home country: Oz
Current location: Kansas
Member since: Mon Nov 15, 2004, 04:30 AM
Number of posts: 37,573

Journal Archives

by which you mean deep SOUTH

the ten reddest states by victory margin in the 2008 election

Wy - 32.24
Ok - 31.29
Ut - 28.02
Id - 25.30
Al - 21.58
Ak - 21.54
Ark - 19.85
La - 18.63
Ky - 16.22
Tn - 15.06
Ne - 14.93
Ks - 14.92

Okay, that is 12, but notice that 3 of the 4 deepest red states are not on the list of 10 worst states for kids. Arizona's victory margin for McCain was only 8.48, and neighboring New Mexico and Nevada both went for Obama by over 10%. Yes, the worst state for kids is a blue state. Arkansas by the way only went for Bush by 9.76 in 2004. It became deep red in 2008 because of what Obama did to Hillary, their native daughter, as it were, in the primary.

The deepest red states in 2004

Utah - 45.54
Wy - 39.79
Id - 38.12
Ne - 33.22
Ok - 31.14
ND - 27.36
Al - 25.62
Ak - 25.55
Ks - 25.38
Tx - 22.86
SD - 21.47
Mt - 20.50
Ky - 19.86
Ms - 19.69

Again, the four deepest red states are not on the list of ten worst for kids. I would also note that the West is deeper red than the south. Some of that may come from the triage. Kerry, having limited resources in a close race, did not bother to campaign in places like ND or Ne or Ks or Ok or SD. The Obama campaign, having more copious resources in 2008, put some effort into those states. It did not really pay off, except in lowering the margin of victory, but Obama won a number of traditionally red states like Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana. In a perhaps closer race, it may once again make sense to write off ND and Ks instead of wasting limited resources chasing after 9 electoral votes you are not gonna win anyway.

ah, but haters always think the person they hate deserves to be hated

What if the facts are that somebody blew up my house when my wife and baby daughter were in it? Could I hate then?

By which I mean, SHOULD I hate then?

Martin did not think so. On January 30th, 1956 Martin Luther King was at a meeting for the Montgomery Bus Boycott. As he relates is starting on page 135 of Stride Toward Freedom, he was told by Ralph Abernathy.

"'Your house has been bombed.'

I asked if my wife and baby were all right.

They said, 'We are checking on that now.'"

He continues on page 139

"I could feel the anger rising when I realized that my wife and baby could have been killed. I thought about the city commissioners and all the statements that they had made about me and the Negro generally. I was once more on the verge of corroding hatred. And once more I caught myself and said: 'You must not allow yourself to become bitter.'"

Of course, now we on the left, some of us, perhaps most of us, honor MLK with our lips, but are ignorant of his teachings, or flat out reject them. Martin writes on page 103

"A fifth point concerning nonviolent resistance is that it avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. THe nonviolent resister not only refuses to shoot his opponent be he also refuses to hate him. At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love. The nonviolent resister would contend that in the struggle for human dignity, the oppressed people of the world must not succumb to the temptation of becoming bitter or indulging in hate campaigns. To retaliate in kind would do nothing but intensify the existence of hate in the universe. Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can only be done by projecting the ethic of love to the center of our lives."

About Brownback's tax "reform"

Governor Brownback stated that the Kansas tax system should be made fairer. I agree with that. Currently the poorest quintile (20% of the population) pays an average rate of 9.2% in all state taxes. The middle quintile pay 9%, and the top 1% (those making over $424,000 a year) pay only 5.9%. (According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy)

Yet Brownback's idea of making this fairer is to give a 1.55% tax cut to those at the top and a .4% tax increase to those at the bottom.

Instead of allowing the temporary sales tax increase to expire as promised, Brownback would extend it. Probably the other 1% sales tax increase will not be allowed to expire either.

Brownback promises that this will bring prosperity. It might. A future prediction is hard to refute. There is no doubt at all, that it will be a tax break that favors the rich.

As far as prosperity, from 1980 to 2010, per capita income in Texas only grew 318%. That's barely different from Kansas growth rate of 302%. South Dakota, (my home state which also has no state income taxes) only grew by 334%. That's slightly better than Kansas, but SD still only has a per capita income of $33,865 compared to $39,737 in Kansas.

Other higher tax states like Massachusetts grew by 410% and New Jersey grew by 363%, and some states like Alaska and Nevada, which have no state income taxes, only grew by 240%. Nevada currently has 13% unemployment.

During his campaign, Brownback often stated that Kansas should be more like Texas. Yet when I looked it up, Kansas was already better than Texas in almost every category. Kansas has a lower crime rate, a lower poverty rate, a higher graduation rate, and a lower unemployment rate. The poverty rate in Texas is 16.2%, compared to Kansas at 12.5%. The unemployment rate in Texas is 8.1%, compared to Kansas at 6.5%.

If Brownback loves Texas so much, he could always move there instead of trying to drag Kansas down to Texas's level. For myself, Kansas is my home now, and in the words of a fictional Kansan "There's no place like home."

"and all because a few starry eyed dreamers like Peter Bailey"

"stir them up and fill their heads with a lot of impossible ideas ..."

George Bailey: "Most people say you stole all the rest ..."

Mr. Potter: "the envious ones say that, George, the suckers"

Yes, why how dare anyone notice that Mr. Potter's got control of the bank, he's got the buslines, he's got the department stores and now he's after us and he wants to keep you living in his slums and paying the kind of rent that he decides. No George, hush, hush, keep it down now, voices carry ...

The Republican recession vs. the Democratic recovery (updated)

Some people may still not like the word 'recovery' with the labor force participation rate still down at 64% and unemployment still over 8% (to say nothing of U6).

However, I still think it is important to point out that the economy took a wrong turn when Bush was President, when Republican policies were steering the ship, and that although Bush trashed the economy when he left the White House, that things have been improving under Democratic policies, particularly the stimulus bill of 2009.

So I show job gains or losses by quarter of a year, as I did last June http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/155

1st (93,000)
2nd (573,000)
3rd (1,002,000)
4th (1,895,000)
total (with Bush as President) (3,563,000)

1st (2,258,000) note - Obama was sworn in as President and the stimulus passed in the middle of this quarter
2nd (1,433,000)
total (in Obama's first five months in office (3,691,000)

3rd (780,000)
4th (310,000)
total of the last half year (1,090,000)

That the economy was no longer losing 1,000,000+ jobs every quarter is a very positive thing. The economy was in free fall and the stimulus was like a parachute. When you open a parachute, you keep falling, but at a much slower rate so that the landing does not kill you.

1st +118,000
2nd +543,000
3rd (137,000)
4th +385,000
total 2010 + 909,000

1st + 497,000
2nd + 290,000
3rd + 441,000
4th + 412,000
total 2011 + 1,640,000

As these Republican Presidential candidates run around promoting a return to Reagan/Bush policies as a cure for what ails the economy, they should constantly be reminded of 2008, that the economy went down on Bush's watch. That it was Bush's leadership and Republican pokicies that created the mess we are still digging out of.

How does building a surplus make him less of a DINO?

DINOs are all about "fiscal conservatism".

The poverty rate in Montana for families in 2009 was 9.93%.

Perhaps some of that surplus should be spent to help the poor.

In 2002, a family of three got $494 a month in TANF in Montana, this fell to $405 in 2005 and rose to $472 in 2008. Still puts Montana behind neighboring SD which pays $539 and ND which pays $477 and Wyoming which pays $506. But way ahead of Idaho which only pays $309. http://www.cbpp.org/pdf/11-24-08tanf.pdf

This note does not sit well with me "Made its personal income tax rate structure less progressive by reducing the number of brackets
and lowering income tax rates"


Schweitzer has been Governor since 2005.

In typical DINO fashion, Schweitzer claims he will create jobs by "cutting taxes for businesses".

"Tax cuts for businesses: Schweitzer called for eliminating the property tax on business equipment over three years for companies with up to $1 million worth of equipment. When fully implemented, that would exempt 98.6 percent of Montana businesses - all but the largest 425 companies in the state - from paying the tax.

The amount of equipment exempt from taxation, now $20,000 per business, would rise to $200,000 in 2012, $500,000 in 2013 and $1 million by 2014. The governor's budget allocates $22 million over the next two years to pay for the reduction."

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_885c48f0-f853-11df-9595-001cc4c03286.html#ixzz1iKaknE15

Certainly sounds like a Republican on economic and tax policy.
Go to Page: 1