AtticaFlinch

Fair is subjective. I don't think a flat tax is in the least bit fair. The value of a dollar is relative to the amount of dollars you have available to spend. Not only that, but in order to fund a government at current levels, the flat tax would have to be set so high as to price poor people out of their homes and make it impossible to feed their families. Plus, and again to maintain government funding at current levels, the wealthy would receive little to no tax breaks. Poor people do not now, nor will they ever be able to, contribute much to the general tax base. The poor and middle-class are best left being taxed less than the wealthy, which allows them to outflow their cash into the general economy - thereby stimulating the economy. It's pretty simple. If you tax the poor and middle-class more, they'll spend less, and it provides little substantial value to the government coffers. Close to half of our country's budget is funded from income taxes, and if you were to set those as a flat tax, you'd either inherently cut that portion of income in half or raise the tax burden on the poor and middle class to unmanageable levels. Consider if you will that roughly 80% of the nation's wealth is controlled by 10% of the population. If you put a flat tax on income, you'd have to raise the tax level for the remaining 90% of the population in order to give any cuts to the top 10%. And if you aren't willing to do that, then what's the point of changing from our regressive system? Personally, I think I already pay plenty in taxes considering what I get in return, but it looks to me like you want me and the other 90% of the nation's population who control the bottom 20% of the nation's wealth to pay more. That doesn't sound too fair to me, but what do I know?* *except basic grade school mathematics...

A good start would have been not to say what he said. Why should I attempt to pretend to see something that doesn't exist? His bone of contention was that the new residents might not be Americans, not that they were poor and not that they're here illegally. It is what it is. Don't try to make it something it's not.

I think we all have a problem with the amount of waste the government is involved in. The big disagreement is about what constitutes waste. A program you see as wasteful I see as beneficial, and vice versa. Resolve that, and then we'll all be happy as clams.

Heh. The rallying cry of the new revolution: "You can take my life, but you can't take my caridgan sweateeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrr!!"

Livincinco, you haven't convinced me. Elder uses the idea that many of the residents of the place not being Americans as evidence the place will be a problem. As has been explicitly stated many times here, he doesn't use the word illegal. He doesn't connect these immigrants to crime. Even though it's possible to read into the implied poverty (as it is low-income housing), Elder doesn't mention that either. No, the idea that the residents may not even be American citizens is enough to condemn the entire property as devastating to the community. In other words, having dirty foreigners in the neighborhood will devalue Katy property values. One thing I'd like you to bear in mind, I've repeatedly said I don't give a flying fart what the developers and the residents of the neighboring communities decide to do with the land. I really don't care. It couldn't possibly concern me less. My big contention is with the racist - excuse me, xenophobic - ideologies underlying the opposition, particularly the contingent embodied by the Katy mayor. It's just wrong. It's immoral and unethical, and it doesn't belong in the 21st century. I'll take your inability to articulate a cogent reason as to why a housing community inhabited by immigrants is inherently problematic as being sufficient evidence to conclude there isn't one. Since that's the case, I'll stand by my conclusion, one which so many people oddly seem hellbent on disproving (or making about me), that Elder is a bigot. And Hanuman, I don't need to get all warm and fuzzy with the man before I can make my decision about his character. And don't worry about the prison. Protesting a prison and protesting a home for immigrants are two different things. I wouldn't want to live near criminals either, but frankly it doesn't make any difference to me what their nationalities are, or their skin color, or their religion, or their sexual preference... I don't want to live near criminals for the high recidivism rate of institutionalized criminality. It makes a pretty big difference. Perhaps you can tell me why protesting a prison would possibly make someone a racist.

Why don't you give me one contextual example where the statement can be viewed as innocent. I'd be happier to be wrong than right on this, trust me.

Should I wait to see if he sets a cross on fire before I pronounce judgment? I'm comfortable with my conclusion.

I don't dislike rednecks. I dislike racists. There's a big difference. Not every redneck's a racist, and certainly not every racist is a redneck. Racists come in all shapes and sizes, and sometimes they come at you subtly and use only slightly offensive phrasing like Elder did. Call it racism, call it xenophobia, call it whatever you want, it's still a deplorable way to think. You can rationalize it all you'd like, and you can try to inject an alternate meaning into Elder's words, but the fact is the man's a bigot.As far as confusion goes, I think you're the one who's succumbed to that. Because I dislike bigots, you've confused that with me disliking southerners and rednecks when nothing could be further from the truth. If I hated southern rednecks, I'd have to hate Hank Williams, and I just can't do that.

I didn't say it did. Though I did say supporting his racist statement made a person stupid, and that Elder himself is stupid. I stand by what I said. No, I will not accept the hatred and paternalism inherent in racism as just some hokey throwback to a previous era. Racism is dangerous, not cute. This isn't like discovering a butter churn in your grandparents' attic. I can judge history on its relative terms, but I will not judge the present, and the people who inhabit the present, on historical terms. I don't speak highly of him either.

There aren't too many residential developers out there either, and I'll bet after the dust settles from the 2009 recession, there will be even fewer than there used to be. The only way to really circumvent this new fee would be to purchase a used home - unless the fee is allowed to be made retroactive on the sale of already constructed homes. Or you can build a lean-to.

But if those 250k people support the mayor and his racist logic, then that makes them just as culpable and reprehensible. Defending Elder's statement is unconscionable this day and age. It's not out of line in 1950s Mississippi parlance, but it doesn't fit in the 21st century. Though like I wrote earlier, I do prefer an honest bigot to a closeted bigot. It makes it a hell of a lot easier to make an accurate snap judgment about the quality of their character than if they mask their bigotry with saccharine hands-across-America fakeness.

Why don't you call them out if they're full of crap? I guess I should change my location tag, as I've recently made the move to suburbialand myself. I guess I do have a stake in the game afterall! (Even if I didn't move into a treeless McMansion neighborhood, instead choosing a home and neighborhood with history and character... (and poor people nearby))

Heh... Gaylord...

Why do you label me a Hater? I already wrote I couldn't care less what you do with the land. You could dump 40,000 gallons of orange sherbet on the property and have the Guinness Book world record for world's largest ice cream fight for all I care. You could build the world's deepest garbage dump on the property and fill it exclusively with roadkill carcasses, and I wouldn't bat an eye. You could build a high-end, gated neighborhood on the property where the streets are paved with gold and the fountains flow milk and honey and it probably wouldn't so much as solicit a yawn from me.I just pointed out your archaic mayor is a racist. And he still is, regardless of whether or not the property's developed for low-income housing. Shame on Katy residents for electing such an anachronistic fool. And shame on anyone who shares his point of view. If you think I'm a Hater because I think racism is stupid and people who hold racist thoughts are stupid, then I suppose by your definition, I'm a Hater. In that case, I'll wear that title proudly. (Edit: Also, thanks for including the "L" in my nom de internet that so many people who feebly attempt to call me out seem to regularly miss.) Looking in your post history, you've posted in the "Katy and Points West" and "The Great Northwest" forums several times yet you live in Sugarland.

The cost of a gallon of gas right now is about $2.60. Let's say your low-income drones live only 15 miles away from their far-flung crappy job serving you burgers at the sparkling new Wendy's being built in Katy. That's a 30 mile per day commute. Now, let's assume their old beater get less than current CAFE standards for fuel economy. I think it's a safe assumption that poor people will have older, less fuel-efficient cars, but feel free to disagree on that point. Anyhow, either way, if their car gets 20 mpg, their total round-trip cost to work and back home will consume a gallon and a half of fuel, or $3.90. Assuming they work full time at 40 hours a week, and assuming that 40 hours is broken up into five shifts of eight hours each, then that would mean the poor low-wage worker was spending $19.50 per week in gas. Over the course of a full year, that fuel cost adds up to $1,014. From a slightly different perspective, the mileage added to the automobile each year will total 7,800, the federal government estimates the cost associated with operating a vehicle to be 56 cents per mile. Looking at costs from this perspective, the low-wage worker will have spent $4,368 per year. Either cost you evaluate, whether total operational costs or just fuel costs, if a person makes low wages, which I would place at less than $25-30k/year, a workday commute would consume a substantial portion of their income. That said, if you're willing to pay more for your goods and services, so the places you shop at can afford to pay their employees more to offset their commute costs in order to ensure no poor folks live near you, then more power to you. I'd rather my goods pricing reflected something closer to the true cost of an item and not just the cost of labor, but we all have different priorities, I guess. I'd rather live near the dirty untouchables and reap the benefits of their labor rather than shut myself off from the outside world. Your life though, your home. And as has been said before, if you really don't want the people who do your dirty work to live within sight of you, then buy the land and do something else with it.

Precisely. Low cost housing in Houston means many of the residents aren't even American citizens. In Houston, we can only respect our immigrants if they live in McMansions.

I fall into the distracted camp. We've recently just moved, and any form we had is now either lost or misplaced. Any idea where we can pick up another?

I don't know either, but I do remember as a kid, both in Galveston and Corpus, being required to wash the sand and tar off my feet before getting in the car.

No, but I heard about a Wendy's opening in Katy!

Is it really all that environmentally unsound? I personally don't know the environmental impact of this decision, but two things to consider are 1) more fields are being closed than being opened, and 2) offshore drilling technology has improved even over the past several years to make for cleaner drilling/pumping in the new fields than was being used in those older fields. Also, I think you've misrepresented Obama's campaign platform. He didn't villify the idea of offshore drilling. He didn't like it to be sure, but he didn't villify it. His position that McCain's overly simplistic "Drill here, drill now" was shortsighted, and I don't see how this current plans stands in opposition to that. As far as a promise not to open up drilling, you can rest assured there will not be any more drilling, it'll just be different drilling.

You totally misinterpreted what I wrote. The unearned money was the student interest the banks made borrowing the money interest free from the government (and also protected by the government in case of default). Also, I have no problem admitting some of my stances reflect aspects of socialism. I was raised a Christian, and my concept of morality and ethics would prevent me from thinking profit motivations rank higher than the needs of the people. So what if a few people take advantage of a system designed to aid people when they're in need? Who gives a crap if a small percentage of people are wastes of flesh? The vast majority of people who utilize social programs do it out of need, and only do it temporarily until they've managed to regain traction. I don't think social programs should be designed to hurt the lowest common denominators, I think they should be designed to aid the majority when it's necessary. You miss the point when you think social programs are entitlement programs even if a handful of people treat it that way. I'm a white male and middle class, and I got a Pell grant every semester I attended college except for two. So, who's being excluded? They're accredited universities. For someone who wants a single set of criteria to exist for everyone, you're acting like you don't want a single set of criteria to exist for everyone. I think that's a fair compromise. I also thought Bush II's rule about out-of-state tuition rates after a certain number of years also was fair. Look, we agree on stuff. Neat. I probably shouldn't have made that personal, but it irritates the crap out of me when you go on about your individual accomplishments as if they're the result of your had work alone. You wouldn't have been able to do it if you didn't have some level of support at various stages in your development. I don't begrudge you that. In fact, I think it's wonderful you've got loving, accomplished parents who find you viable enough to have helped develop you. I wish everyone did, but not everyone does. For them, the government has need to act as a surrogate (of sorts), and I'm glad they do. The fact is, no one on earth makes it through life without help. No one. Not even you. How is this even redistribution? You aren't being charged any more money for it. Your taxes aren't increasing. It's taking unrealized gains from allowing the government to handle a job that had been gifted to the private sector, and then using that money to help more people go to school. Considering you didn't have to borrow a dime to go to college, and considering most kids of well-to-do families don't have to borrow a dime to go to college, it seems to me this plan is taking the future gains of the poor and middle-class and applying it to their educations now. It's not a redistribution if it's their money in the first place.

Well, I hope it's a sign of more positive things to come. We're a much stronger country when we work together and focus on our similarities than when we fight each other and focus on our differences.

Oh? Funny thing is, Obama isn't just pushing for oil though. Opening these oil fields is just one part of a comprehensive plan to upgrade our energy supply. The Republican plan was to stick more straws in the dirt and then stick their heads in the sand, hoping big business led the way in developing alternative energy plans on their own for the eventual time when oil became cost prohibitive to produce. So actually, the Republican plan, while temporarily pragmatic, was also rather shortsighted. As a beneficiary of several Pell grants, I applaud this decision. Some of us didn't have the benefit of wealthy parents like you did who would pay for all the costs of our education. I see nothing wrong with taking unearned money from big business and reinvesting it in the education of our nation's students. I really don't understand your reasoning for disdain either, unless you're suggesting that education is a privilege reserved exclusively for an elite few. Crazy, I know. However, I bet if we have a more highly educated populace earning greater amounts of money due to their education, we'll be able to absorb the loss through greater income tax revenue. For someone so reliant upon his family for his upbringing, his education, his home and his job, I find it repulsively and obnoxiously hypocritical that you have a problem with other people doing the same thing. You are the HAIFy Little Lord Fauntleroy.

I can't speak for the president, and I'm certainly not privy to all the information he is, but I'd bet his change of pace has something to do with the sluggish economic recovery weighted against the ecological needs of the manatee. I'm guessing, based on the obvious, we the people and pragmatic decision-making skills outweighed partisanship and blind rhetoric. http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/03/31 This is assuming, of course, that you find the continued decline of employment rates to be a significant piece of new information. There may be some scientific stuff that swayed his decision too, and I'm sure that's what you were fishing for, but I'm willing to bet the economy was his biggest motivator.

Call it what you want, but I call it making an informed decision based on the accumulation of more information. How can you expect someone to be an effective leader if they were to tenaciously hold onto all their ideas regardless of what new and enlightening information came in? Oh wait, that's exactly what conservative luddites expect us to do. That's why so many of them revered George II and that's why whenever Sarah Palin's mug come on the boobtube. If many of them had their way, we'd still live in caves and eat raw meat.