2013 Election (Columbus, Cincinnati, Warren: cul-de-sac, low income, insurance)

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by hensleya1

jbcmh81--

Cranley is a liberal Democrat in that he voted lockstep with Qualls 98% of the time when they were both on council.

Some logical problems... None of the people supporting him here are liberal in any sense given the positions they have taken, nor is it very likely that the suburbanites who voted for him are liberal when Cincinnati's suburbs are notoriously conservative. A liberal Democrat would not run exclusively on killing mass transit in the city or some of the other issues he's taken on. Liberal and progressive go hand in hand, and mass transit is a progressive policy, particularly when dealing with urban transit issues. If by the unlikely chance that Cranley considers himself to be liberal, perhaps he's unaware of what that actually means, or perhaps it should be stated that it is relative to Cincinnati's overall political spectrum. The city itself has only voted for a Democratic president since 2008, after all, and by the smallest margin of the 3-Cs, and by one of the smallest of any of the major Ohio cities. So yeah, call me skeptical to say the least.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

The world is chock full of with people who have varying opinions and preferences, regardless of their ages.

Would it not also be ironic that people who don't live anywhere near the city's farther-out neighborhoods dictate what happens in Westwood or Mt. Washington?

The city of Cincinnati consists of more than the "urban center of the city". I suggest you consult a map and then travel around to learn about the city's varied neighborhoods.

Of course, but these days, it is more a rarity than not.

Did that happen here? And if you don't think that's fair, why are you here insisting that the suburbs were right to decide the fate of the center?

This is clearly one of those issues where certain folks did not see the benefit for the region simply because they did not see it as having a direct impact on their own lives. The people most likely to use the streetcar wanted it while the people least likely to use it didn't. However, in other cities like Columbus/Cleveland, both sides would likely see a mutual benefit even if not everyone was going to use it. In Cincinnati, that doesn't happen and the two sides are seemingly constantly at war. This is holding Cincinnati back from moving forward. Like it or not, the election result is a huge mistake, especially if Cranley is able to go through with scuttling the project at the halfway mark.

[Ohiogirl81]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

id that happen here? And if you don't think that's fair, why are you here insisting that the suburbs were right to decide the fate of the center?

You're confused. "The suburbs" cannot vote for the mayor of Cincinnati.

[Chemistry_Guy]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Some logical problems... None of the people supporting him here are liberal in any sense given the positions they have taken, nor is it very likely that the suburbanites who voted for him are liberal when Cincinnati's suburbs are notoriously conservative. A liberal Democrat would not run exclusively on killing mass transit in the city or some of the other issues he's taken on. Liberal and progressive go hand in hand, and mass transit is a progressive policy, particularly when dealing with urban transit issues. If by the unlikely chance that Cranley considers himself to be liberal, perhaps he's unaware of what that actually means, or perhaps it should be stated that it is relative to Cincinnati's overall political spectrum. The city itself has only voted for a Democratic president since 2008, after all, and by the smallest margin of the 3-Cs, and by one of the smallest of any of the major Ohio cities. So yeah, call me skeptical to say the least.

What suburbanites vote in the city elections?

[kjbrill]

Coseau ... Boy some economics professor has filled your head full of a bunch of BS.

Years ago, the company I worked for had a profit sharing program. It was a family owned company and I worked for the brother of the President. I remember talking to him and his saying they hoped the profit sharing program would be the best thing they had ever done for the employees. He showed me some projections which indicated an average employee would enter retirement with a handsome nestegg as the profit sharing was set up it had to be invested, not paid out in cash. So it would compound over a period of years. Of course there were some provisions in the company's interests. For the first 5 years while you had a calculated amount, if you left in less than 5 years of employment that amount went back into the general pool and was redistributed. After 5 years it was yours to take. After about 10 years my thought was this is starting to look like some serious money and I still had a long way to go. But the first time the company ran into a lean year and did not make a contribution to the profit sharing the union blew up and threatened to strike if they didn't discontinue the profit sharing and give them an hourly raise. The company threw up their hands and gave in. I guess the numbskulls were too stupid to read the statements they had been receiving on the profit sharing plan and see the momentum it had been gaining.

Relative to 401K programs there are strict federal laws as to how much can be contributed annually, and they are nowhere near the levels of the uber rich. When companies began to be concerned about how to fund their traditional pension plans, particularly when the government began to clamp down on how it must be adequately funded, they asked for a path of relief. Thus was born the 401K. To say it is a vehicle for top level executives is far from the truth. It was a vehicle for companies to tune down their long term pension liabilities. A company is permitted to match an employees 401K contribution up to a certain maximum. So they can say we have your future retirement at heart. The caveat is there must first be an employee contribution or there is no employer contribution, and employers can always suspend theirs if they run on lean times. The biggest benefit to the employer is once they make their annual contribution to the employees 401K acccount they are free of it. From then on it is a pure investment account under control of whomever they set up to manage the account. If the mangers or the economy of the country manage to lose all the value in the account - too bad. But don't say it was designed for the uber rich, it was not.

[INsync3]

Sad day for Cincinnati, John the new mayor says "Lets stop the streetcar project because the city will fall into bankrupt and companies defiantly would not invest.

[Coseau]

Originally Posted by Coseau

The 401 k retirement system was not designed for the average worker in mind but for high salaried top level executives and CEO's of corporations so that their retirement funds could be portable in case they went to work for another corporation. Changing the retirement system into a 401 k type system is seen by most people as a way for Wall Street to get new reliable revenue streams and not to stabilize the system or benefit the worker. What is about to happen in Michigan and especially Detroit is a template of what is about to happen all across America. State Governors and Legislators will pass laws that will give them authority to seize power from local elected officials and hand it over a corporate lawyer that will have the title of "emergency manager". The corporate lawyer/emergency manager will then proceed to sell off public assets such as parking, roads, airports, water and sewer systems to their corporate cronies as for these corporations to have reliable revenue streams. The public will see their services (police, fire, libraries, museums, etc ) reduced, public employee pensions slashed and rates jacked up on services such as water and sewer. These fiscal crisis will not be blamed on the real cause which is de-industrialization accelerated by free-trade deals like NAFTA and permanent normalization of trade relations with China but spun to and by corporate controlled media blaming local inept officials, public sector unions and pensioners as to condition the mind of the public to acquiesce and accept the looting they will be the victim of by Wall Street and billionaire corporate cronies of politicians. America is fast becoming a toll-booth society where what was once public assets and built with public funds such as roads, highways,bridges, water and sewer systems will be sold and privatized to corporations for the benefit of corporations. This has been written about by others such as Michael Hudson and John Nichols.

Ironically these State Governors and Legislators that seize power from local elected officials and replace them with unelected officials are of the political persuasion that are the biggest whiners if they think the Federal government in Washington D.C. is doing the same thing to them.

[INsync3]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Of course, but these days, it is more a rarity than not.

Did that happen here? And if you don't think that's fair, why are you here insisting that the suburbs were right to decide the fate of the center?

This is clearly one of those issues where certain folks did not see the benefit for the region simply because they did not see it as having a direct impact on their own lives. The people most likely to use the streetcar wanted it while the people least likely to use it didn't. However, in other cities like Columbus/Cleveland, both sides would likely see a mutual benefit even if not everyone was going to use it. In Cincinnati, that doesn't happen and the two sides are seemingly constantly at war. This is holding Cincinnati back from moving forward. Like it or not, the election result is a huge mistake, especially if Cranley is able to go through with scuttling the project at the halfway mark.

I am in favor of the streetcar, your confused the suburbs are probably not in favor of it but they cant vote so really only the people that are in favor of it can vote for it. Anyways we don't need advice from someone that lives in Columbus...

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81

You're confused. "The suburbs" cannot vote for the mayor of Cincinnati.

I was referring to the suburban areas of the city. Thought that was clear, but I guess not.

[progmac]

Cincinnati has very few suburban areas within the City limits. The City hasn't annexed since I think 1920