Page 3 of 3 [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

03 Sep 2011, 4:42 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
blauSamstag wrote:
Salt Lake City is by far the most liberal city in Utah, has near any kind of vice you could want aside from weird restrictions like you can't see a drink made in front of you and you can't touch the stripper. SLC routinely elects democrats.

Mormon Democrats? Liberal relative to the Mormon Republicans? I thought Salt Lake City was where the LDS were headquartered and where their prize university, Brigham Young University, was located. A secular, liberal atheist, for example, may not find much of a community there, I'd assume.


Having a university and Church located their doens't mean it's the bastion of conservative Mormonism.

You're pretty wrong.

NYT wrote:
For nearly 30 years, Salt Lake City has remained an anomaly in Utah politics, a place where most of the state's Democrats and members of non-Mormon churches reside. They have steadily elected Democrats as mayor since E. J. Garn in 1971. Beyond city limits, virtually all meaningful elected posts are traditionally held by Republicans, a list that currently includes Gov. Michael O. Leavitt, most state legislators and all five members of the state's Congressional delegation.


http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/04/us/a- ... -city.html

Bob Bernick wrote:
As city-dwellers across Utah go to the polls today, they will be electing the politicians closest to their neighborhoods — mayors and city council members.

And while each of Utah's 245 cities and towns has its own unique characteristics, few are as different, as diverse, as the state's largest city.

Salt Lake City is about to liberalize its zoning ordinances to allow more bars per block.

Today, it could elect its first openly gay council member.

Salt Lake Mayor Ralph Becker (who is not on today's ballot) is the former leader of Democrats in the Utah House.

"We are a unique city, different than most of the rest of the state," said Becker on Monday. "We want to be ourselves, but we also welcome everyone here."

Two new surveys for the Deseret News and KSL-TV by pollster Dan Jones & Associates show among their demographics just how different Salt Lake City residents are politically and culturally compared to most of the rest of the state.

(There are other small pockets of "liberalism" in Utah, like Park City, Moab, Springdale and Price, to name a few.)

All of Salt Lake City's state House and Senate members are Democrats — a few among them the most liberal in the heavily conservative Legislature. All Salt Lake mayors have been Democrats since 1976.

And while the city is the world headquarters for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mormons are a minority in the city itself.

Here are some other interesting polling statistics matching Salt Lake City residents with Utahns as a whole:

63 percent of city residents have a college degree. The city is home to the University of Utah and much of its staff lives there. The city also contains five major hospitals, several museums and theater companies, a ballet, opera and symphony.

In Utah as a whole, 48 percent of residents have college degrees.

37 percent of Salt Lakers say they are Democrats. Thirty-one percent say they are political independents; only 24 percent say they are Republicans.

Across the state, 46 percent say they are Republicans; 28 percent say they are political independents and only 15 percent say they are Democrats.

This makes Utah one of the most Republican states in the nation. All statewide offices are held by Republicans, all governors have been Republicans since 1984 and Republicans have held majorities (often with two-thirds majorities) in the Legislature since the late 1970s.

In the city, 40 percent of residents say they are members of the LDS Church, either inactive, somewhat or very active in their church. (Less than a third of city residents say they are "very active" LDS.)


Across the state, 68 percent of residents say they are LDS, Jones' latest survey shows. (Jones is married to Senate Minority Leader Pat Jones, D-Holladay.)


 And the real kicker statistic: 32 percent of city dwellers say they are "somewhat" or "very liberal" politically.

In Utah as a whole? Just 12 percent.

"I wear a big 'L' on my chest, I'm voraciously liberal," says Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake, the current minority leader of the Utah House.

Raised in his early life outside of Utah, Litvack moved here with his parents during high school. He lived by Cottonwood High School, outside of the city limits.

But when he returned to Utah after graduate school, he moved first to Sugar House, then to Central City.

Litvack and his wife, who are Jewish, sought a "diverse area, culturally, ethnically and politically," he recalls, "to raise our children.

"We are a conservative state, no doubt about it."

For the Litvacks, finding that diversity meant Salt Lake City, not its suburbs, not Utah or Davis counties.

But, on the other hand, "policywise, we do some very progressive things in this state — like how we treat illegal immigrants and (how) we work in corrections" — the rehabilitation of inmates, he added. "When I was in college, I missed Salt Lake and Utah. It is a great place to live and raise a family."

Becker, who rides his bicycle to City Hall almost daily, says he's been warmly received on Capitol Hill since his election two years ago — even though most of the lawmakers perhaps look with a wary eye at Salt Lake City.

"We are different here in two major ways — social justice (especially gay rights) and protecting the environment," said Becker, who came to Utah for work and college.

"Both are areas not only where city residents want to be, but where we should be to be a great American city," he said.

LDS or not, says Becker, Salt Lakers are "more progressive" on such issues, and he hopes the conservative Legislature will let Salt Lakers alone on matters "that are on the forefront of our" residents' agendas.


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... .html?pg=2

Although, to be fair, Mormons do form a plurality in Salt Lake City.


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

03 Sep 2011, 5:04 pm

Wikipedia wrote:
Salt Lake City has been considered one of the top 51 "gay-friendly places to live" in the U.S.[61] The city is home to a large, business savvy, organized, and politically supported gay community. Leaders of the Episcopal Church's Diocese of Utah,[62][63] as well as leaders of Utah's largest Jewish congregation, the Salt Lake Kol Ami,[64] along with three elected representatives of the city identify themselves as gay. These developments have attracted controversy from socially conservative officials representing other regions of the state. A 2006 study by UCLA estimates that approximately 7.6% of the city's population, or almost 14,000 people, are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual, compared to just 3.7%, or just over 60,000 people, for the metropolitan area as a whole.[65]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Lake_ ... mographics


_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

06 Sep 2011, 12:19 pm

I am firmly entrenched in what might be conventionally described as the "Upper Middle Class," both by birth and upbringing and by my own economic productivity.

I live paycheque to paycheque, paying down the mortgage on my house. (Though to be fair, I made a choice to buy big, and the degree to which I am "house poor" now, is inversely propostional to the equity that it will generate for my retirement. So, yes, tax policy has a direct impact on my spending capacity. The imposition of new or increased taxes has a measurable impact on my quality of life. But even in those circumstances I do not feel assailed. I live in the suburbs, but I take public transit to work--I do not feel that the economic choice of public transit is a war on people at my level.

I continue to support progressive taxation, and strong, publicly funded programs to deliver health, education, income assistance, housing assistance, employment insurance and basic retirement income. In point of fact, I see my taxes going directly into creating a society in which not only can I afford to retire, but I can retire into any community and feel safe. Canada's poorest postal code is 10 blocks from my office. I can walk through those streets, day or night, and feel safe.

Tax policy is notionally about the transfer of dollars from citizens to government; but in truth, tax policy runs much deeper, and goes to the very heart of the kind of society that we try to create. I, for one, am prepared to look at what is accomplished with my tax dollars and conclude that I am better served by my government than I could accomplish with that same money on my own.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Sep 2011, 12:59 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Tax policy is notionally about the transfer of dollars from citizens to government; but in truth, tax policy runs much deeper, and goes to the very heart of the kind of society that we try to create. I, for one, am prepared to look at what is accomplished with my tax dollars and conclude that I am better served by my government than I could accomplish with that same money on my own.



In short, you want something for nothing. You are willing to pay X to ultimately receive X + Y where Y comes out of someone else's pocket and is taken by force or law.

ruveyn.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

08 Sep 2011, 1:34 pm

ruveyn wrote:
In short, you want something for nothing. You are willing to pay X to ultimately receive X + Y where Y comes out of someone else's pocket and is taken by force or law.

ruveyn.


Quite the contrary--given my income and family configuration, I contribute well more than the average. I am quite happy to contribute the "Y" that goes to other people, because I believe that I live in a safer, healthier and more prosperous community as a result, which gives me far more benefit than those "Y" dollars would give me if they were still in my pocket.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Sep 2011, 1:39 pm

visagrunt wrote:

Quite the contrary--given my income and family configuration, I contribute well more than the average. I am quite happy to contribute the "Y" that goes to other people, because I believe that I live in a safer, healthier and more prosperous community as a result, which gives me far more benefit than those "Y" dollars would give me if they were still in my pocket.


I assume you would give to help others if there were no taxes. So far so good.

You are a hero of charity. But you want to force uncharitable people to be charitable at gunpoint. That is not so good.



ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

08 Sep 2011, 3:38 pm

ruveyn wrote:
I assume you would give to help others if there were no taxes. So far so good.

You are a hero of charity. But you want to force uncharitable people to be charitable at gunpoint. That is not so good.



ruveyn


No, I want to force other people to pay their fair share for the benefit of living in a safe, healthy, prosperous community. I see no point in rewarding greed by allowing the uncharitable to have their cake and eat it too. Unless the uncharitable are willing to signs on their houses that say, "Rob me first, I have chosen not to pay taxes," I see no reason to exempt the uncharitable.


_________________
--James


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

08 Sep 2011, 9:29 pm

visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
I assume you would give to help others if there were no taxes. So far so good.

You are a hero of charity. But you want to force uncharitable people to be charitable at gunpoint. That is not so good.



ruveyn


No, I want to force other people to pay their fair share for the benefit of living in a safe, healthy, prosperous community. I see no point in rewarding greed by allowing the uncharitable to have their cake and eat it too. Unless the uncharitable are willing to signs on their houses that say, "Rob me first, I have chosen not to pay taxes," I see no reason to exempt the uncharitable.

It is useless attempting to explain to ruveyn that government programs are a non-zero-sum game where even people contributing more than the average benefit.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

08 Sep 2011, 9:40 pm

Orwell wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
I assume you would give to help others if there were no taxes. So far so good.

You are a hero of charity. But you want to force uncharitable people to be charitable at gunpoint. That is not so good.



ruveyn


No, I want to force other people to pay their fair share for the benefit of living in a safe, healthy, prosperous community. I see no point in rewarding greed by allowing the uncharitable to have their cake and eat it too. Unless the uncharitable are willing to signs on their houses that say, "Rob me first, I have chosen not to pay taxes," I see no reason to exempt the uncharitable.

It is useless attempting to explain to ruveyn that government programs are a non-zero-sum game where even people contributing more than the average benefit.

He's a rigid thinking block-head who doesn't realize that if everyone had the same attitude as him we would be living in caves.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Sep 2011, 12:42 am

marshall wrote:
Orwell wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
I assume you would give to help others if there were no taxes. So far so good.

You are a hero of charity. But you want to force uncharitable people to be charitable at gunpoint. That is not so good.



ruveyn


No, I want to force other people to pay their fair share for the benefit of living in a safe, healthy, prosperous community. I see no point in rewarding greed by allowing the uncharitable to have their cake and eat it too. Unless the uncharitable are willing to signs on their houses that say, "Rob me first, I have chosen not to pay taxes," I see no reason to exempt the uncharitable.

It is useless attempting to explain to ruveyn that government programs are a non-zero-sum game where even people contributing more than the average benefit.

He's a rigid thinking block-head who doesn't realize that if everyone had the same attitude as him we would be living in caves.

But he would be living in his cave eating his scavenged and half-rotted meat that was cooked over his fire, and to hell with that pinko stinko commie liberal who wanted to form a hunting party that would share in the fresh meat they kill as a group.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

09 Sep 2011, 10:28 am

marshall wrote:
He's a rigid thinking block-head who doesn't realize that if everyone had the same attitude as him we would be living in caves.


I don't think that's entirely fair. He is rigid. And I don't agree with many of his positions. But he is, actually, quite unashamedly aware of the nature of his thinking.

That is one of the reasons that ruveyn is a conservative thinker whose participation I enjoy here.


_________________
--James


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

09 Sep 2011, 3:21 pm

visagrunt wrote:
marshall wrote:
He's a rigid thinking block-head who doesn't realize that if everyone had the same attitude as him we would be living in caves.


I don't think that's entirely fair. He is rigid. And I don't agree with many of his positions. But he is, actually, quite unashamedly aware of the nature of his thinking.

That is one of the reasons that ruveyn is a conservative thinker whose participation I enjoy here.


I do respect Ruveyn for at least having internally consistent values and not using the just world fallacy. I still think that if the majority of people thought exactly like him the human race wouldn't accomplish much.