Conservatives? (Boston, Cambridge, Lexington: how much, purchase, school)

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by dontbugmeplease

So how did Romney and Weld get elected?

There are people outside of Boston who aren't as liberal, but the question was about Boston. If you check the results, Boston went heavily for O'Brien and I'm pretty sure Silber too.

Weld was a reaction to the horror that was Dukakis, but he was a relative liberal compared to many other Republicans, and the legislature kept him in a box anyway, as was the case with Romney.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by holden125

Sorry if it offends people, but if you're defining "mainstream America" as Marietta, Ga., I think you missed the election results both in 2006 and 2008. There is a Democrat in the White House who is well-regarded in Greater Boston (the previous occupant stole his place there anyway), there are 59 Democrats in the US Senate, and it's 255-178 in the House. Thanks to the great job the Republican Party did running things, the GOP is due for a few decades in the doghouse and the people who elect Barney Frank are far more in touch with the national mood TODAY (not 2002) than your new, now-isolated region is.

Georgia? Talk about an echo chamber.

I won't get into the macro debate on politics or the causes of the various current economic environment (cough...did someone mention Barney Frank and lack of oversight and personal relationship with Fannie Mae executives and Obama's ties to Frank Raines?) because they are complex and not for this forum.

I will say that you are correct as to quoting the election results, but that doesn't validate that somehow Boston is in the mainstream of American politics. The Democrats won, but in many cases with slim margins in states that are quite conservative overall. President Obama did a great job or capitalizing on the "change" message, although I'm not sure he's executing based on his team and message, and I would submit because he knows most people aren't looking for radical changes.

As for Atlanta (Marietta is a suburb of Atlanta) it's actually more diverse than you seem to believe, but yes, it's on the conservative side of the spectrum which is part of why I like it. We have a state deficit, just as almost all states have now due to tax collection drops, and the state leaders have ruled out tax increases (or will only look at them as a last resort). They are cutting waste and trimming fat to get us to a balanced budget, which is unheard of in MA. Here the presumption is that the money belongs to the people not the government. Let's not even discuss that in MA the budget is in the range of $34 Billion for 6.5 million people while here it's around $23 Billion for almost 10 million people. The people of MA missed a golden opportunity with Question 1 but that goes to my initial point.

[holden125]

Originally Posted by neil0311

I won't get into the macro debate on politics or the causes of the various current economic environment (cough...did someone mention Barney Frank and lack of oversight and personal relationship with Fannie Mae executives and Obama's ties to Frank Raines?) because they are complex and not for this forum.

I will say that you are correct as to quoting the election results, but that doesn't validate that somehow Boston is in the mainstream of American politics. The Democrats won, but in many cases with slim margins in states that are quite conservative overall. President Obama did a great job or capitalizing on the "change" message, although I'm not sure he's executing based on his team and message, and I would submit because he knows most people aren't looking for radical changes.

As for Atlanta (Marietta is a suburb of Atlanta) it's actually more diverse than you seem to believe, but yes, it's on the conservative side of the spectrum which is part of why I like it. We have a state deficit, just as almost all states have now due to tax collection drops, and the state leaders have ruled out tax increases (or will only look at them as a last resort). They are cutting waste and trimming fat to get us to a balanced budget, which is unheard of in MA. Here the presumption is that the money belongs to the people not the government. Let's not even discuss that in MA the budget is in the range of $34 Billion for 6.5 million people while here it's around $23 Billion for almost 10 million people. The people of MA missed a golden opportunity with Question 1 but that goes to my initial point.

I don't think MA voters made a mistake on Question 1. It would have been highly irresponsible. I do not mind paying taxes and I note that the state income tax in Georgia is higher (6% on income over $7K) than that in Mass. (5.3% flat rate). If we paid 6% we'd be closer to a balanced budget. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities indicates (State Budget Troubles Worsen) that the two states are in similar situations for fiscal 2009 but projects that Georgia will have eliminated some of its budget gap by 2010 but Mass. will not.

The budget is $34 billion for a smaller population because of a political philosophy that is not as averse to government, but also because the median income is about 30% higher in Mass. than in Ga. (62K v. 49K). This leads to higher receipts when taxes are a percentage of income and also requires state employees to be paid more.

United States and States - R1901. Median Household Income

Atlanta is somewhat diverse politically. Cobb County went for George Bush by 62% in 2004, and this in a county where 23% of the population is black and 11% is Latino. There's basically your Democratic votes in 2004--voting patterns remain incredibly segregated. In 2008 McCain's win was only like 54-45, which indicates to me (aside from potential demographic shifts in four years) that even in Newt Gingrich's hometown there has been a political shift.

Not to belabor the issue, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac got into the risky mortgage game later and to a lesser extent than private lenders. And Obama's ties to Raines were less than the ties McCain's people had to Fannie/Freddie anyway. What I agree with is that those companies were in a dangerous position: private ownership and concomitant pressure to generate profits, but government guarantees of bailout in the case of failure. This would lead anyone to take risks heedlessly. The thing is, I don't see how, in practical terms, the private financial companies had it any different, since they've all perfected their "too big to fail" speech. Both parties dropped the ball with the financial bailout: if that much is going to be spent to infuse capital into a skittish and broken credit system, there should have been some more stringent requirement that institutions actually lend.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by holden125

I don't think MA voters made a mistake on Question 1. It would have been highly irresponsible. I do not mind paying taxes and I note that the state income tax in Georgia is higher (6% on income over $7K) than that in Mass. (5.3% flat rate).

The state income tax in GA is not higher when you consider that it's graduated with exemptions and deductions, so you pay less at the lower brackets and the cumulative total percentage is about the same as MA at the highest bracket. I can attest to that, given I've paid both on the same income amount. My income tax at the local level has not gone up at all since my move.

It was a neutral move for my property tax bill as well, except my home is twice as nice for less. Sales tax is 4% statewide with 2% county option taxes that provide excellent roads and modern well equipped schools. We don't have the local issues with school funding and roads in a complete state of disrepair due to funding, as in MA. I pay 6% sales tax here compared to 5% in MA, but that's going up in MA (at least for meals), and I get much better services for my extra 1%.

We can disagree on the opinions and outlooks, but the facts are facts.

[TomDot]

I'm a conservative and believe it or not McCain actually took three precincts in the city of Boston including my Dorchester precinct.

It looks as though we are being vindicated too. I feel as if there are children running the nation right now.

[Valerie C]

Please consider coming to New Hampshire Massachusetts is a lost cause, and if you're not of the "Yes I'm a liberal and you should be too!" mindset, you're a definite minority. However, we in New Hampshire are trying to preserve "the New Hampshire way" and our more fiscally conservative values.

Originally Posted by Cinaed

I have been planning on moving to MA for a few months now. I decided to join some social networks to see if I might meet some people in the area I will be moving to soon. I am taking time to rethink if MA is a good move for me as since joining 3 social networks and receiving communication from those living in Massachusetts, about 97% have all listed their political standing as: Socialist, not liberal mind you...Socialist. I am not an extreme Right Wing Conservative (I consider I am a moderate with a few conservative views) but it has saddened me to realize there are SO MANY Socialists living in MA. I just have to say, the idea of going to live among socialists is very UNAPPEALING to me, and yes indeed does sound very UNAmerican... So I taking time to rethink things

Cinaed

[holden125]

Originally Posted by TomDot

I'm a conservative and believe it or not McCain actually took three precincts in the city of Boston including my Dorchester precinct.

It looks as though we are being vindicated too. I feel as if there are children running the nation right now.

Well, I don't agree. I think we had children running the nation for the previous 8 years. The sad irony is that all the "fiscal conservatives" are blaming Obama and the Democrats for deficit spending when the Bush administration engaged in some of the most egregious deficit spending ever, and most (though not all) of the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives didn't have much to say about it. Now, after 8 years of raising spending while cutting revenue, Obama has little choice but to engage in further deficit spending for the simple reason that the house of cards has collapsed, and there is a desperate need for some demand coming from somewhere in this economy so people can get back to work. Of course the new spending wouldn't be as much of a concern if Bush hadn't doubled the national debt in 8 years.

I also don't see how you're being vindicated. Obama's approval rating is still well above 60%, and 60% support the stimulus bill, while Republicans in Congress are getting something like 19 or 20% approval. If you think you're being vindicated I'd say popular opinion nationwide doesn't agree.

Three precincts? Out of what, 250? I think he took one of those precincts by something like 12 votes. The city went 79-19 for Obama. McCain didn't get as much as 40% in any Boston ward. Obama took more than 45% in Arizona.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by holden125

I think we had children running the nation for the previous 8 years. The sad irony is that all the "fiscal conservatives" are blaming Obama and the Democrats for deficit spending when the Bush administration engaged in some of the most egregious deficit spending ever, and most (though not all) of the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives didn't have much to say about it. Now, after 8 years of raising spending while cutting revenue, Obama has little choice but to engage in further deficit spending for the simple reason that the house of cards has collapsed, and there is a desperate need for some demand coming from somewhere in this economy so people can get back to work. Of course the new spending wouldn't be as much of a concern if Bush hadn't doubled the national debt in 8 years.

I will grant you that GWB and the Republicans who controlled Congress spent like drunken sailors. Some of it was necessary and some of it wasn't. That's why they got voted out of control of the House and Senate in 2006.

The Democrats have had control of Congress for 2 years. How many balanced budgets did they pass that were vetoed by GWB? Answer: NONE

Sure, we're in a severe recession and some stimulus spending isn't a bad idea, but by any measure the so-called stimulus bill that passed is a huge expansion of government that will be hard to reel in once this economic crisis is over. What's even worse is that it contains very little actual stimulus and a lot of social spending and tax cuts geared to people who aren't in a position to move the economy. Where was the small business tax relief? Where was the tax relief to spur investment and get capital moving? Even the piddly tax credit that is in the law for buying a home is limited to first time buyers and low incomes. Giving $10 to $20 /wk to lower income people who pay no taxes or modest taxes may provide a tiny economic bump, but at a HUGE cost in borrowed money.

The SEC has been asleep at the wheel for the last few years...granted. Wall Street had a drunken orgy and invented new ways to create risk. That doesn't excuse Chris Dodd and Barney Frank who have been just as equally asleep and who fought tooth and nail against any regulation or oversight on Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. They were promoting their social agenda of loans for low income people who shouldn't have gotten them, and they railed against making any changes to tighten credit standards. That was at least partially to blame for the mess that the GSEs are in and the greater mess of the banking system. They've been in charge of the Congressional ovesight for the past 2 years.

There is plenty of blame for both parties and plenty of "children" on each side of the political fence. The problem is that now the Congressional Democrats are using the cover of the economic crisis to grab social and economic power and make drastic changes to our system that will have far reaching and potentially devestating consequences. You want to talk about children in charge....just look at Nancy Pelosi and many of the Democrats in charge of the House. Never in history has there been such a lackluster group of incompetent people supposedly leading a nation. Pelosi is the definition of someone who doesn't have the first clue about an economy or running fiscal policy.

[TomDot]

Originally Posted by holden125

Well, I don't agree. I think we had children running the nation for the previous 8 years. The sad irony is that all the "fiscal conservatives" are blaming Obama and the Democrats for deficit spending when the Bush administration engaged in some of the most egregious deficit spending ever, and most (though not all) of the self-proclaimed fiscal conservatives didn't have much to say about it. Now, after 8 years of raising spending while cutting revenue, Obama has little choice but to engage in further deficit spending for the simple reason that the house of cards has collapsed, and there is a desperate need for some demand coming from somewhere in this economy so people can get back to work. Of course the new spending wouldn't be as much of a concern if Bush hadn't doubled the national debt in 8 years.

I also don't see how you're being vindicated. Obama's approval rating is still well above 60%, and 60% support the stimulus bill, while Republicans in Congress are getting something like 19 or 20% approval. If you think you're being vindicated I'd say popular opinion nationwide doesn't agree.

Three precincts? Out of what, 250? I think he took one of those precincts by something like 12 votes. The city went 79-19 for Obama. McCain didn't get as much as 40% in any Boston ward. Obama took more than 45% in Arizona.

I don't deny that McCain was a terrible candidate. What I am saying is that there were areas of the city, including mine, that did vote for him despite the fact that he was actually the lesser of two liberals. So it's not a complete lost cause.
Let me ask you Holden, How do you feel about our governor raising the gas tax, in all probability raising tolls, and putting chips into our cars to tax our mileage?
Are you going to blame this on the Bush Administration?

If these three things happen then the state will lose at least two more educated professionals.
Yes We Can!

I am not a fan of Bush either but I would hazard to guess that had there not been pilots training in America to fly planes into buildings before he came into office we probably could have saved a trillion dollars.

As for approval ratings, I only follow Rasmussen because they poll likely voters and those are the only ones who count.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ..._index_history

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by holden125

The budget is $34 billion for a smaller population because of a political philosophy that is not as averse to government, but also because the median income is about 30% higher in Mass. than in Ga. (62K v. 49K). This leads to higher receipts when taxes are a percentage of income and also requires state employees to be paid more.

United States and States - R1901. Median Household Income

So let me get this right... You are saying that spending and the income tax percentage must be fixed? So as incomes increase, the budget and spending must grow and grow?

What about the ballot initiative passed in '98 to reduce the income tax back to 5%? Why won't the Democrats honor that voter passed law now that the recession of 2001 is long over?

You seem by your comments to be an example of the socialist mentality. Your view seems to be that taxes are benign, even good, and that the state not only has the right but the obligation to take and spend as much as possible on whatever it deems to be necessary. Do you also believe that wealth should be confiscated from those who earn it and given to those who don't?

Why is it in MA that someone on public assistance or in prison can get a free and taxpayer paid education, but my child couldn't? BTW...here in the miserable, Republican controlled, poor and ignorant state of GA, they can. All GA residents can get FREE tuition and expenses through the Hope Scholarship if they earn it. Where is the free college education for MA citizens?

http://www.gacollege411.org/FinAid/S...ip/default.asp