DISQUS

When studying my major (Criminology) we studied the Broken Windows theory and I always agreed with it. It's cool to finally see an "experiment" that tested that theory to some extent.

However, I just thought of a question. If you fixed up every ghetto neighborhood and made it clean and fixed all the "broken windows" would the neighborhood change? Or is it still a problem with the people and their attitudes? Either way, I think it would be safe to say "nice" neighborhoods and communities with places like Whole Foods will always have less visible crime. Perhaps they will have a lot more white collar crime though? I'm rambling now... Thanks for the post though.

When studying my major (Criminology) we studied the Broken Windows theory and I always agreed with it. It's cool to finally see an "experiment" that tested that theory to some extent.

However, I just thought of a question. If you fixed up every ghetto neighborhood and made it clean and fixed all the "broken windows" would the neighborhood change? Or is it still a problem with the people and their attitudes? Either way, I think it would be safe to say "nice" neighborhoods and communities with places like Whole Foods will always have less visible crime. Perhaps they will have a lot more white collar crime though? I'm rambling now... Thanks for the post though.

@Daniel - Absolutely I'm serious. One would think you could judge content on its merits, instead of the source but I'm going on statistics here. Isn't that what you do for those who claim to be Christians or news postings from foxnews.com?

@Daniel - Absolutely I'm serious. One would think you could judge content on its merits, instead of the source but I'm going on statistics here. Isn't that what you do for those who claim to be Christians or news postings from foxnews.com?

Daily Kos? lol. I take nothing seriously from Daily Kos. Far to biased and just not good reporting at all. It's simply propaganda.

Daily Kos? lol. I take nothing seriously from Daily Kos. Far to biased and just not good reporting at all. It's simply propaganda.

Pure WIN. Every time.

Pure WIN. Every time.

Whenever I used to complain about politics I always heard, "Well, why don't you run and change things?"

I can see it now - Miessler for Pres!

Whenever I used to complain about politics I always heard, "Well, why don't you run and change things?"

I can see it now - Miessler for Pres!

Check spelling of "latter" in the following sentence - "the later of which serves as the foundation for our systems of morality and justice throughout the world."

Spelling of significant in the following - "signifiant respect for a number of Microsoft offerings"

4th paragraph, last line centers instead of being left justified.

Just a couple things I found while scanning through. Pretty descriptive about me page. Looks pretty solid Daniel!

Check spelling of "latter" in the following sentence - "the later of which serves as the foundation for our systems of morality and justice throughout the world."

Spelling of significant in the following - "signifiant respect for a number of Microsoft offerings"

4th paragraph, last line centers instead of being left justified.

Just a couple things I found while scanning through. Pretty descriptive about me page. Looks pretty solid Daniel!

Without proposing support for Obama or McCain's tax initiatives, I want to reiterate something John said. What people don't understand about all these tax plans is the implications they have on the working folks. Like John said, if Corporate taxes are raised, you think corporations are just going to eat it? That they are going to just settle for lower earnings? Shareholders wouldn't be happy with that.

So either a) corporations will pass the tax increases down to the consumers/clients in the form of higher costs of goods and services, or b) reduction in budgets like John said. The latter could easily translate into job losses or reduction in quality of goods. The former could result in an economic slowdown for some industries (product is just too expensive and we can't afford it, so we'll just find a cheaper alternative - outsourced goods/services - or cease purchases and business with that company altogether.

So individual tax cuts while corporate tax increases aren't always a good thing. But on the other hand tax increases on individuals and corporate tax cuts are not necessarily the answer. I really need to learn more about the Flat Tax plan because the concepts do sound VERY fair. I mean, you want equality, so everyone pays 30%? That sounds pretty fair. Make $20,000/year? Your tax is $6,000. Make $100,000? Your tax is $30,000. Like I said, sounds fair to me, but I don't understand it all yet.

Without proposing support for Obama or McCain's tax initiatives, I want to reiterate something John said. What people don't understand about all these tax plans is the implications they have on the working folks. Like John said, if Corporate taxes are raised, you think corporations are just going to eat it? That they are going to just settle for lower earnings? Shareholders wouldn't be happy with that.

So either a) corporations will pass the tax increases down to the consumers/clients in the form of higher costs of goods and services, or b) reduction in budgets like John said. The latter could easily translate into job losses or reduction in quality of goods. The former could result in an economic slowdown for some industries (product is just too expensive and we can't afford it, so we'll just find a cheaper alternative - outsourced goods/services - or cease purchases and business with that company altogether.

So individual tax cuts while corporate tax increases aren't always a good thing. But on the other hand tax increases on individuals and corporate tax cuts are not necessarily the answer. I really need to learn more about the Flat Tax plan because the concepts do sound VERY fair. I mean, you want equality, so everyone pays 30%? That sounds pretty fair. Make $20,000/year? Your tax is $6,000. Make $100,000? Your tax is $30,000. Like I said, sounds fair to me, but I don't understand it all yet.

You are correct Deb, he is proposing to eliminate the tax exemption of health care benefits. But did you know that he is going to give everyone equally across the board ($2,500 for individuals and $5,000 to families) a tax CREDIT in place of the tax exemption? This will allow all those lower class individuals who don't receive healthcare coverage through their employers to have money in order to GET coverage. You would think Democrats would be for that. It will also benefit the existing 14 million households who are on nongroup, individual plans to be able to receive a subsidy of sorts so that they too can reap the benefits that so many other people who work for companies offering healthcare coverage have been receiving for years.

One main benefit I see is that this proposal now allows individuals the freedom to choose providers and not just be stuck with the one that their company has brokered a deal with. Don't like the insurance provider your company uses? Fine, go get your own individual policy and you won't be penalized as you are now for not taking corporate benefits. Now, everyone is equal regardless of the job you hold or company you work for and receives the same tax break. The current law penalizes those who seek out individual policies, even though it may mean better healthcare for their families.

So yes, McCain is eliminating a tax exemption on healthcare benefits, which will raise your annual taxable income. However, he's also giving a tax credit which will then reduce the tax owed.

You are correct Deb, he is proposing to eliminate the tax exemption of health care benefits. But did you know that he is going to give everyone equally across the board ($2,500 for individuals and $5,000 to families) a tax CREDIT in place of the tax exemption? This will allow all those lower class individuals who don't receive healthcare coverage through their employers to have money in order to GET coverage. You would think Democrats would be for that. It will also benefit the existing 14 million households who are on nongroup, individual plans to be able to receive a subsidy of sorts so that they too can reap the benefits that so many other people who work for companies offering healthcare coverage have been receiving for years.

One main benefit I see is that this proposal now allows individuals the freedom to choose providers and not just be stuck with the one that their company has brokered a deal with. Don't like the insurance provider your company uses? Fine, go get your own individual policy and you won't be penalized as you are now for not taking corporate benefits. Now, everyone is equal regardless of the job you hold or company you work for and receives the same tax break. The current law penalizes those who seek out individual policies, even though it may mean better healthcare for their families.

So yes, McCain is eliminating a tax exemption on healthcare benefits, which will raise your annual taxable income. However, he's also giving a tax credit which will then reduce the tax owed.

In regards to your tax argument, I believe it's incorrect. Sure, the plan right now is that Obama will help those making less than 111k. But what about when he implements the Socialist program known as Universal Healthcare? And by the way, you're kidding yourself if you don't think UH is Socialist. It would be state run healthcare! How much more "Russian" can you get?

Back to my point. Obama has all these grand ideas of providing health care to all who need it. Sure, people like myself who make a decent living can always have private insurance, as long as I still put into the government healthcare program. Can people not see how this will end up exactly like Social Security? Either Obama will raise taxes to support UH, or UH will utterly fail (like Social Security) due to lack of funding and very, very poor management by the government.

So no, if Obama wins, NO one is going to be getting any tax breaks.

In regards to your tax argument, I believe it's incorrect. Sure, the plan right now is that Obama will help those making less than 111k. But what about when he implements the Socialist program known as Universal Healthcare? And by the way, you're kidding yourself if you don't think UH is Socialist. It would be state run healthcare! How much more "Russian" can you get?

Back to my point. Obama has all these grand ideas of providing health care to all who need it. Sure, people like myself who make a decent living can always have private insurance, as long as I still put into the government healthcare program. Can people not see how this will end up exactly like Social Security? Either Obama will raise taxes to support UH, or UH will utterly fail (like Social Security) due to lack of funding and very, very poor management by the government.

So no, if Obama wins, NO one is going to be getting any tax breaks.

This is funny. Why? Well, how much did he actually do in the State legislature? Not a whole lot. That's great he taught constitutional law, he sure doesn't apply it to his policies. If he did, he'd be more in line with Ron Paul. Things like smaller government, less taxes, etc.

The biggest issue right now is that the Dem's are grappling for something to deflate the Palin factor, so they attack her for her supposed lack of experience. What the Republican's are saying about Obama's lack of experience are simply a result to Obama's campaign attacking Palin first, who on the contrary actually has had much more administrative experience than Obama. So, without sounding too childish, the Obama campaign started it first by attacking Palin's qualifications. Last I checked, she was running as VP and HE was running as President. Little bit of a difference there.

So I'll have to disagree with you on this one. This video definitely does not show pwnage.

This is funny. Why? Well, how much did he actually do in the State legislature? Not a whole lot. That's great he taught constitutional law, he sure doesn't apply it to his policies. If he did, he'd be more in line with Ron Paul. Things like smaller government, less taxes, etc.

The biggest issue right now is that the Dem's are grappling for something to deflate the Palin factor, so they attack her for her supposed lack of experience. What the Republican's are saying about Obama's lack of experience are simply a result to Obama's campaign attacking Palin first, who on the contrary actually has had much more administrative experience than Obama. So, without sounding too childish, the Obama campaign started it first by attacking Palin's qualifications. Last I checked, she was running as VP and HE was running as President. Little bit of a difference there.

So I'll have to disagree with you on this one. This video definitely does not show pwnage.

Wow, you are really hung up on this fact that McCain doesn't "know" this chick. I really believe the fact he only met her once in person is irrelevant. You can tell a lot about a person and their character from how they act. Things they have done. In the case of congressional folks, how they vote. In the case of governors, how they administer their state and various state programs.

I'm sure McCain and his staff didn't just choose this woman at random. I'm sure there was a lot of research done on her. Do I believe it could be an absolutely political move? Sure I do. But I don't think he picked her just for her looks or because she's a woman. I think he picked her to help shore up the gaps with his conservative base that has been extremely skeptical of him. Skeptical because of his stance on guns, immigration, FISA, etc.

Why did Obama choose Biden? Simple, he's trying to fill the gaps for all the critics who accurately point out his severe inexperience in executive leadership and government and foreign policy. That's what a VP slot is for. To complete the package so to speak. So it's not all that different from why McCain chose Palin.

Wow, you are really hung up on this fact that McCain doesn't "know" this chick. I really believe the fact he only met her once in person is irrelevant. You can tell a lot about a person and their character from how they act. Things they have done. In the case of congressional folks, how they vote. In the case of governors, how they administer their state and various state programs.

I'm sure McCain and his staff didn't just choose this woman at random. I'm sure there was a lot of research done on her. Do I believe it could be an absolutely political move? Sure I do. But I don't think he picked her just for her looks or because she's a woman. I think he picked her to help shore up the gaps with his conservative base that has been extremely skeptical of him. Skeptical because of his stance on guns, immigration, FISA, etc.

Why did Obama choose Biden? Simple, he's trying to fill the gaps for all the critics who accurately point out his severe inexperience in executive leadership and government and foreign policy. That's what a VP slot is for. To complete the package so to speak. So it's not all that different from why McCain chose Palin.