(22) comments Back to story

Bill Quiroga

There are two candidates that are running for re-election they are Terrilyn Tarlton and Marie Robb both ran on fighting the public housing issue and both flip –flop. They lied to the voters.

Steve Fouga

Fortunately Ms Tarlton made up for this mistake during the rest of her term on Council. As far as I'm concerned, it was the only thing she's done that I disagreed with.

Ellen Morrison

Well, Elizabeth Beeton and Norman Pappous have staunchly tried to defend the COG against the incursion of special-interest-benefitting mixed-income monstrosities.

But at the GAIN forum, Jim Yarbrough said that housing was a done deal and we need to accept that it will be built. No, i still don't think we're at that point yet. We'll find out more on May 6th.

George Croix

The reason that people legally eligible to vote should go vote is that SOMEONE IS GOING TO WIN.
Even if you personally do not like ANY of the candidates, ONE of them WILL get the job. Might as well pick the one you dislike least, and help them beat the ones you dislike most, if you simply cannot like one.
Not voting is the same as being very hungry, and deciding to simply not eat, or telling the waitress to just bring you whatever, then griping when it's a plate of something green and wrinkled and a bit smelly leftover from last week...

Gary Miller

The people who don't vote always lose.

Gary Miller

I agree with your statement on voting. It should be understood you won't always get what you want but you could get less of what you don't want.
Getting less of something you don't want is reason enough to vote.

The failure of COG CC not standing strong against Public Housing has nothing to do with what local voters voted for.
The poverty industrial complex is run from higher levels not affected by local voters.
It uses our money to buy our votes or ignores our "wrong way" votes.

George Croix

Yes. Poverty is big business.
Consider the irony that LBJ's supposed 'war on poverty', begun a half century ago, has instead turned out to be a never ending effort to CONTINUE poverty, in return for votes.
When you focus on 'entitlements' rather than 'jobs', and provide more of the former than the latter, you get what you wanted - generational poverty.
Give people 'just enough' of OPM to keep them dependent on 'government money', and you WILL get people to vote for whomever promises to keep that coming.
Arrange it carefully with ever more 'benefits' such that it would cost the Takers (that would be those people who COULD work if they WOULD work, and if we had politicians running the country who cared about jobs creation so there would BE work) more to work and be self-sufficient than to let others work and do the providing.
Come up with assinine comments like 'income inequality' and 'war on women', and convince the lesser among us to believe and even spread such cra_ , thus guaranteeing constant unrest and division, the better to keep attention off the facft that the people SAYING those buzz words are the very people CAUSING and BENEFITTING from their constituents living a life of indentured servitude where a check comes in the mail for votes cast.
It's so easy for them when their victims, the TRUE victims, not the ones ginned up by the grievance industry working hand-in-hand with the federal poverty industry, have been hoodwinked and lied to all their lives about who is friend, and who is foe, and lack the will to educate themselves as to fact over fiction.
It's HARD to stop being dependent.
It's nearly impossible when a)you don't want to, and b) your own governemnt doesn't want you to...
The ONLY way out is to VOTE for people who offer you a chance to improve your lot in life through effort that is put into honest and rewarding work, and who will not then immediately take your money away just to promote their own power base.
But, it's a legitimate question to ask if there is even the possibility of that ever happening again, given the demonstrably enthusiastic nature of the way this country so quickly listened and supported the siren song of 'us against them'.

Lars Faltskog

So, geocroix -
Did you wholeheartedly agree with Phyllis Schlafley when she said that a woman who is fortunate enough to have a high income will experience a harder time to "find a man"? Yep, that pesky income equality thing that these broads come up with. Why can't they just be glad they can be unveiled and drive on the public roads (albeit in their cheap cars - if lucky enough to have one)?

Norman Pappous

Income equality is a construct of the left. It was not a right that we were endowed with.

Our Constitution guarantees the right to equal opportunity - not equal income.

George Croix

Mr. Pappous, I fear you will have a rather limited tenure in politics.
It's just not the normal vocation or even avocation of honest people unafraid to to stand behind what they say, and who can see the world clearly, because they don't have their heads shoved so far up their rear.
Sir, you simply are not, imho, very 'progressive'...[smile][wink]

Kevin Lang

I'm curious as to why it's a good idea that a company can decide that a particular job is worth $20/hr if a white male takes it, but something less than that if an equally qualified person of a different race or gender happens to take it? Not talking about a white man with 10 years of doing the job, versus a woman fresh out of training, nor a factory laborer that can move 50 pieces of pipe per hour versus a weaker person that can only move 20 per hour, but two people with equal qualifications and equal history at the task and/or its pre-requisites. Apples-to-apples, except for different outward physical characteristics. What is it about white males that makes them worthy of a few extra dollars per hour? Is being a white male some kind of value-adding accomplishment? Why should white males lose their jobs because a business thinks they won't do the job if it only pays $17/hr?

George Croix

Why don't you ask the company(s) to which you refer?
Then, make a list of everyone you can think of who has been exactly equal in every respect to another applicant for a job. That would include not only how many sheep they've skinned and any job experience, but also their interview presence: speach, personality, mannerisms, manners, confident air, eye contact, neatness and grooming, etc., ALL of which play into every interview for employment, and during the course of said employment.
After that, make a list of the number of hens you've seen with teeth.
The lists will have the same number of entries.
The same characters ginning up yet another us-against-them phony controversy have THEMSELVES stated that the reasons that THEIR employees do not all get paid equally are due to a 'variety of factors', some like I mentioned.
Yet, they get the suckers Out There at each others throats with more phony controversy based on the idiotic notion that there ever has been, or ever will be, or even could be, 'equality' for all, while using such as a distraction to draw attention away from themselves.
How very convenient that so many of the SAME people so happy to hand out jobs where the one getting it was often way LESS qualified, for REAL, based on nothing but protected class status, the REAL inequality of even opportunity, are now so concerned about one person making more than another.
The darn trees keep preventing the usual suspects from ever, it seems, finding the forest...

Kevin Lang

As best as I can tell, the company I work for does a good job of paying people based on their ability to meet the job requirements, without respect to gender. Do we have women in certain positions getting paid less than their male counterparts? I'm sure we do. I'm sure we have men in those positions getting paid less than women, too. True equality? Probably doesn't happen anywhere. However, if it smells like racial or gender bias, I don't think it's "progressive" to question or challenge it. I think it's not only reasonable, but responsible to do so.

You know as well as I do that there are few jobs that require a full list of exact requirements that only one person can meet. Sure, if certain skills are particularly desirable, and the male happens to have those "extra credit" skills, certainly, he may be worth a little more. However, if his only only "extra credit" skill is the ability to reproduce X chromosomes, then you have gender bias, which is wrong.

I never mentioned anything about "protected class". Paying a woman more just because she's female is just as wrong as paying a man extra just because he's male.

Lars Faltskog

Well, I can see that both our 5:06 and 5:53 posters are living in the "fabulous fifties", where the women take a job because they look glam in it, while waiting in the wings for the right man. Then, they can quit and be supported in happily ever after bliss. LOL Never mind that the women are probably taking up the slack and doing the real work for the good 'ol boys, even now in 2014.

It's so difficult in this day and age to believe that some folks don't realize that income inequality is still a major issue (both regarding gender and in relation to the eroding middle class in general). Just this morning was an ABC news overnight segment on how Elizabeth Warren is in the forefront of making awareness in regard to "the rich getting richer" and the middle class continuing to falter.

The term called "relative deprivation" is a disparity study concept where even among family relatives, the extended family can blatently see where one sector is fortunate with good job security/good salaries, and the other side making ends meet, working several jobs, but not making gains. Yet, working more hours than the more affluent group of relatives. Al Gore states that the 400 wealthiest people in the US have larger net worth than 50 percent of the country.

But, back to gender income inequality: In 2010, FTYR (full-time year round workers) showed median income of $42,800 for men and only $34,700 for women. This was in ALL industries. Even in education, where women can predominate, there are gaps. With equal Ph.D training and years of experience, women are still less likely to be promoted from assistant to associate professor and/or associate to full professor.

Interestingly, the "hours worked" (knowing that women work less hours than men because of womens' childrearing obligations) are still only part of the gender pay gap. Studies used "control grouping" to take into consider human capital variables. And, still there are other UNEXPLAINED reasons for gender gap in pay. So, you see there still is a problematical issue in income inequality among the genders.

Miceal O'Laochdha

Do we really believe that a manager who has control of compensation, will look at Mary, a certified welder, and say to himself (or herself): "well, Mary is a very good (and certified) welder but, since she is a woman, I believe we will just pay her $2.00 per hour less than Bob", who is also a skilled and certified welder? Because the manager just thinks women should be paid less than men? In 2014 (and for many years prior) that notion is absurd.

And, a thought about the usual platitudes concerning voting that surface every election season: The notion that one must vote in order to have a moral right to an opinion about elected officials' performance simply establishes a false dichotomy. It is designed by politicians to allow those who make no contribution to the community nonetheless to be able to affect the lives of everyone else who do. Those who pay taxes therefore pay the salaries of elected officials (or those they are permitted by virtue of election to appoint and hire on our behalf). Paying the freight for these elected and appointed officials is the fact that gives one the moral authority to have an opinion about our employees. I think it was that great American, Emma Goldman, who said that voting was just pabulum for the masses.

George Croix

One thing needed in the category of 'things to remember' is that having the same job is not the same as doing the same job.
I worked with a lot of people who 'had the same job' but didn't perform it the same.
It was very evident in the represented employees, where hourly pay rates were known to all, that many, many people got the same dollar per hour rate, but 5 minutes watching was enough to conclude that performance varied greatly.
Is that 'fair' by POTUS' latest criteria for how to make a bigger divide?
Another is that companies may well, and rightly so, take into consideration absenteeism from the 'same job', and compensate accordingly.
Some people with the 'same job' have an option for flexible hours to help meet their home life schedules, and that may also legitimately be considered as 'compensation' as it requires accomodation during 'normal' business hours to adjust for said person't elective absence.
All in play here is the Divider in Chief doing all he can to get the usual suspects all mad at each other so maybe they'll forget for a while what an abysmal 'leader' he's been at the 'same job' that previous people have had.
Rather than regurgitate his talking points, spend a half hour researching 'income disparity' at some non-ideological sources, and take note of the fact that 'the pay gap' all but, or completely, evaporates when the actual issues in play at 'the same job' are considered.
Or, do like he wants, and get all PO'd.
While doing that, ask why POTUS, the 'champion of the little guy' is not doing exactly what he accuses others of not doing on this issue.
The answer will be 'a variety of factors enter into the compensation matrix', or some similar.
Why is it OK for he, but not thee?
Folks need to eventually get smarter, and stop believing this charicature of a 'leader'. You'd think winning a liberal newspapers' Lie of the Year' award would have done that already....

George Croix

And, a thought about the usual excuses for not voting.
Barack Hussein Obama, second term.
Oh, if only that were baby food he's shoving at us, instead of what it is...
Personally, I think people who have no skin in the game should not have a say in the process. If you pay no federal taxes, then why should you get to vote to make me pay more to care for you? But, The Founders probably never anticipated the entitlement culture, and the Constitution serves so well for all else, that it's less 'fair' parts must be lived with.
Unless you're the 'progressive' POTUS who just ignores it at will...
Did I mention how he got a second chance to do that...?

Lars Faltskog

Response to gecroix posted at 10:14 am on Tue, Apr 22, 2014:

So, if an individual happens to be a housewife who hasn't been in the workforce for 12 years - is she one of those with "no skin in the game"? After all, she technically pays no taxes, her working husband does. And, how about an independently wealthy individual who simply doesn't have to work, and therefore pays no income tax?

Then again, we have folks who also don't believe in "equal pay for equal work". Wow, if folks of your belief system were still in high numbers, the only voting persons available would be money-making, male, and - let's admit it - "republican thinking".

Miceal O'Laochdha

I don't suggest people should not vote, for any of the good reasons mentioned by others or, for any reason whatsoever. By all means: vote! hey, hurry to the polls!

What I do suggest is that trying to stifle the free speech of those who do not vote with the holier-than-thou admonition: "if you don't vote you have no right to complain" is BS. And you know that is a common refrain, especially at election time.

As long as you pay taxes (salaries of public servants) you have every right to complain (or praise) their performance. if the housewife's husband is paying the taxes for their household, his wife, his children, indeed his dog, have earned their right to an opinion. Theirs is a joint, family effort in life.

And by no means should the taxes that earn one's entry into the opinion sweepstakes be limited to income taxes alone. We are surrounded by taxes of all kinds and they are the dues we pay to expect our voices to be heard. Voting is a separate, albeit a related, path of free speech.

George Croix

Who said that if you don't vote you have no right to complain?
I missed that, and would cheerfully disagree with that, too.
What I said in as many words is absolutely correct, and that is that everyone of voting age does indeed vote whether they go to the polls or not, so they might as well do so, and at least get as close as they can to what they prefer.
Consider...how does one win an election.
The answer is to get more votes than your competition.
For every vote the other guy gets, the first guy has to get one vote to counter it.
The fewer people who vote for the other guy, the less votes you need to win.
Ergo, a person who could vote for candidate A, but sits out the election, effectively gives candidate B a vote, because he does not have to negate one cast against him.
Same goes for a vote cast for a candidate challenging an incumbent in a general election. The incumbent needs people to vote FOR him to stay in office, OR to split their vote for the other candidates such that they do not get, as one, as many votes as he. Even better for incumbency if they stay home and 'protest' or simply go lazy.
A perfect example is BHO's second election. He'd have LOST, handily, if the SAME people who voted in '08 for McCain turned out in the same numbers and voted for Romney. Too many sat it out, because of a lack of ideological purity with them and the chosen challenger, or voted for the guy(s) who had ZIP chance to win.
Like it or not, EVERYBODY who is legally eligible to vote (and, quite a few who are not) does indeed vote, whether they physically do or not.
It's not MY system. It's the one we've always had, and the one so easily exploited by folks who understand it's workings, and can exploit people's divisions.
But, no right to complain!?
Perish the thought.
Even if some of it should rightly be used for a bit of self-excoriation... [wink]
I have personally had voters remorse on more than one occassion. Hard as it is to believe, sometimes a candidate does not turn out as expected...

Now, so then, an illegal alien just across the Rio who pays his 8.25% sales tax at a Houston Stop-N-Rob on a bag of chips gets the same voice as a citizen, because he's a 'taxpayer'?
And with that absurdity we can see the danger in extremes of 'rights'...
My point earlier was that we've become a nation driven largely by self-interest, and the more people who can vote to take away from You to give to Me, and in return do little or nothing to contribute to the well being of anyone else, then we are on a short course to the likes of Greece or France.
A family is a UNIT, and that unit HAS 'skin in the game', so of course they should get a say. Arguably, the MOST skin of all, as the disollusion of the family unit in preference to 'alternatives' has, imho, been an extremely destructive societal force, on par with the secularists havoc wrought as they demand freedom FROM religion, but insist on taking freedom OF it from others.
Who should vote, then? All those Constitutionally allowed to do so?
Interestingly, when a President takes away ALL of the rights of actual voters to be represented by the Senator or Representative of their choice by 'bypassing' them, utterly negating their constituents votes, for things that executive privelage was never intended to be used for, the folks are largely silent as the Constitution is trashed by way of 'evolving' actions and attitudes.
In this country, our biggest enemy of our democratic republic is...us...

Miceal O'Laochdha

Agree with pretty much all of that gecroix but, I would expand a little on the illegal alien paying sales tax. And, the sales (and possibly other) taxes he pays will be a lot more than the one bag of chips used as an example. Illegal aliens do, inevitably, pay varying amounts of taxes, no doubt some pay as much as legal citizens, or more.

And yes, I do believe that gives him too, the right to complain or praise the actions or inactions of government employees. But, he is still a criminal, can't vote, and should go back home and get in that long line at the US Embassy for a visa.

Meanwhile until that happens, we will gladly take his tax contributions, since they likely came from the fruits of his labor instead of the government hand-outs going to so many of our legal citizens, and let him complain, one more voice crying out in the Wilderness to fire all politicians is welcome.

George Croix

'The same voice as a citizen' is not the same as 'right to complain' to an old piney woods stomper like me.
Vocal cords and the spark of life and, presumably at least, a brain, give humans the right to express themselves.
Citizenship gives the right, and also the obligation, to participate in the workings of government.
If illegal aliens would have voiced their opinions in their own countries long ago, and done something to positively effect change there, perhaps they wouldn't need to come here, and try to effect it here. imho
From a practical standpoint, no country can survive open borders indefinitely, and unless the various POTUS's get their heads out of their behinds and get some control there, we'll be gradually marginalized and 'fundamentally changed', for the worse.
From a personal one, I have a LOT more respect for some guy trying to feed his family by the sweat of his own brow than I do the moochers and generational grievance industry poverty artists in this country, sitting on their backsides letting other people care for them when they could be working.
My solution: Make a swap with Mexico and take their industrious, willing to work for their keep people and give them back an equal number of our generational system abusers and takers.
We'll be better of for it, at least for a while, and the new citizens of points south will get a first hand look at 'oppression' by 'the man' for real, and will either scratch for themselves, or wonder why nobody else will do it for them...
And then....I woke up...[wink]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.