MA-GOV: Who will challenge Baker?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Lynch is a Castro lover.

[Intell]

Lynch is a Castro lover.

The stupidity in that post is ridiculous.

[brucejoel99]

The idea that Stephen Lynch is a moderate charade is getting ridiculous. He voted against Obama care from the left, calling strongly for a universal healthcare system based upon public option, which all these socially liberal pro-abortion very much progressives congressman did not. He visited Cuba in 2002, and met with Castro, one of only 5 congressmen to do so. He's also very left wing in regards to labor unions, and strongly opposes RTW, statewide in any state or nationwide. "In response to a budget crisis in the state's nursing homes, due primarily to Medicaid shortfalls, he filed an unsuccessful bill in April 2001 to increase Medicaid funding by $200 million". I could go on, but do I need to go on, but let's let the abortion lobby and Lena Dunham's define what left wing is and let's keep on losing elections!

To be fair, Lynch is a moderate Democrat by MA standards, but a moderately liberal one by nat'l standards. He generally votes more moderate on social issues & liberal on economic & environmental issues. To actually paraphrase the man, calling him the least liberal member from MA is like calling him the slowest Kenyan in the Boston Marathon; it's all relative. You're right, though, in saying that he's strongly pro-labor; he focuses on bringing manufacturing jobs to his district. He's even a co-founder & co-chair of the Congressional Labor & Working Families Caucus.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Hopefully Baker will be allowed to run unopposed.

[Deblano]

All in for Baker #4MoreYrs

[Gass3268]

Hopefully Baker will be allowed to run unopposed.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Red-baiting BRTD is getting tiresome.

Lynch is a top-ten Congressman and my vote for him in the 2013 primary is the one I'm proudest of.

[RogueBeaver]

Former Patrick aide Jay Gonzalez will run.

[Thank you for being a friend...]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

[Figueira]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

[arjavrawal]

Baker's not a bad governor at all. I'd vote for him any day.

I highly doubt any of the congressional delegation runs -- we need quite a few of them in the House -- Kennedy, Moulton, and Capuano come to mind.

[smoltchanov]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

[Intell]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

No, you do need to cut funding for homeless shelters, there are different things to do, like yes increasing taxes on the rich, or cutting in different areas. It is question of decency and morality.

[Figueira]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

I mean, you could raise taxes....

[smoltchanov]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

I mean, you could raise taxes....

Tax and spend, tax and spend... The only thing liberals know. I am tired to hear this since 1960th.....

[smoltchanov]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

No, you do need to cut funding for homeless shelters, there are different things to do, like yes increasing taxes on the rich, or cutting in different areas. It is question of decency and morality.

Taxing those who earns money in order to give it to those who doesn't (and frequently doesn't want to do anything about that) was always a liberal's obsession.... Your "rich" usually EARN money, so, of course, they must be taxed to death)))))

[Intell]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

No, you do need to cut funding for homeless shelters, there are different things to do, like yes increasing taxes on the rich, or cutting in different areas. It is question of decency and morality.

Taxing those who earns money in order to give it to those who doesn't (and frequently doesn't want to do anything about that) was always a liberal's obsession.... Your "rich" usually EARN money, so, of course, they must be taxed to death)))))

Yes, the poor rich people When you know you could use it to lift people out of poverty, and not cut homeless shelters.  I feel bad for the rich people that have to pay a little more in tax, on the income they make above $ .....

[smoltchanov]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

No, you do need to cut funding for homeless shelters, there are different things to do, like yes increasing taxes on the rich, or cutting in different areas. It is question of decency and morality.

Taxing those who earns money in order to give it to those who doesn't (and frequently doesn't want to do anything about that) was always a liberal's obsession.... Your "rich" usually EARN money, so, of course, they must be taxed to death)))))

Yes, the poor rich people When you know you could use it to lift people out of poverty, and not cut homeless shelters.  I feel bad for the rich people that have to pay a little more in tax, on the income they make above $ .....

Again - they EARN that income. What initiative i would have to work hard if i would know that you plan to deprive me of bigger and bigger chunk of my hard-earned income in favor of those, who can, but doesn't want to earn "their" money??

[Intell]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

No, you do need to cut funding for homeless shelters, there are different things to do, like yes increasing taxes on the rich, or cutting in different areas. It is question of decency and morality.

Taxing those who earns money in order to give it to those who doesn't (and frequently doesn't want to do anything about that) was always a liberal's obsession.... Your "rich" usually EARN money, so, of course, they must be taxed to death)))))

Yes, the poor rich people When you know you could use it to lift people out of poverty, and not cut homeless shelters.  I feel bad for the rich people that have to pay a little more in tax, on the income they make above $ .....

Again - they EARN that income. What initiative i would have to work hard if i would know that you plan to deprive me of bigger and bigger chunk of my hard-earned income in favor of those, who can, but doesn't want to earn "their" money??

Nobody, but a society is based upon cooperation and looking out for those in need, therefore yes, the rich do have to pay to live in such a society, and pay increased levels in tax. It is a moral and social obligation.

[smoltchanov]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

No, you do need to cut funding for homeless shelters, there are different things to do, like yes increasing taxes on the rich, or cutting in different areas. It is question of decency and morality.

Taxing those who earns money in order to give it to those who doesn't (and frequently doesn't want to do anything about that) was always a liberal's obsession.... Your "rich" usually EARN money, so, of course, they must be taxed to death)))))

Yes, the poor rich people When you know you could use it to lift people out of poverty, and not cut homeless shelters.  I feel bad for the rich people that have to pay a little more in tax, on the income they make above $ .....

Again - they EARN that income. What initiative i would have to work hard if i would know that you plan to deprive me of bigger and bigger chunk of my hard-earned income in favor of those, who can, but doesn't want to earn "their" money??

Nobody, but a society is based upon cooperation and looking out for those in need, therefore yes, the rich do have to pay to live in such a society, and pay increased levels in tax. It is a moral and social obligation.

Words and very standard words to boot. If i am forced by "society" to pay excessive taxes (as in Sweden - up to 95% on high incomes as i heard) i WILL NOT work and earn such incomes. And let such "society" be damned!

[Intell]

I think I'll cross over and vote for Gov. Baker.  He seemed like a genuinely nice person when he appeared at a homeless dinner a few years back.

Doesn't change the fact that he recently cut funding for homeless shelters.

Sometimes you must cut somewhere. Liberals frequently amuse me: they act as if they have unlimited source of money. In such case it would be another matter. But not - in reality..

No, you do need to cut funding for homeless shelters, there are different things to do, like yes increasing taxes on the rich, or cutting in different areas. It is question of decency and morality.

Taxing those who earns money in order to give it to those who doesn't (and frequently doesn't want to do anything about that) was always a liberal's obsession.... Your "rich" usually EARN money, so, of course, they must be taxed to death)))))

Yes, the poor rich people When you know you could use it to lift people out of poverty, and not cut homeless shelters.  I feel bad for the rich people that have to pay a little more in tax, on the income they make above $ .....

Again - they EARN that income. What initiative i would have to work hard if i would know that you plan to deprive me of bigger and bigger chunk of my hard-earned income in favor of those, who can, but doesn't want to earn "their" money??

Nobody, but a society is based upon cooperation and looking out for those in need, therefore yes, the rich do have to pay to live in such a society, and pay increased levels in tax. It is a moral and social obligation.

Words and very standard words to boot. If i am forced by "society" to pay excessive taxes (as in Sweden - up to 95% on high incomes as i heard) i WILL NOT work and earn such incomes. And let such "society" be damned!

95% on high incomes, proof? Let me remind a top marginal tax rate is not that 95% of your income goes to your government, it is that, income made after a certain point, is taxed at 95%, while income made below such income, is taxed the same as other people. Yes the rich have an obligation to pay, and they will still get more income, if they work more. Don't work to earn such incomes than, and earn less money, you can surely do that.

If you have such a problem with paying more tax to help others and homeless people, when you're rich, you're engaging in sin and greed, and you're also an awful person.

P.S I'm not even advocation 95% top marginal tax rate, 80% would be good.

[smoltchanov]

^ I am not rich (my present $700/month isn't too much even for Russia), and not greedy. Whether i am sinful and awful - it's not for you to decide))). I help people when i can, but i don't think anyone (even rich) must pay as taxes 80% of their incomes after some value. Slightly progressive scale - yes, but word "slightly" is a key for me (in fact - there is flat 13% tax in Russia now, so i am a "progressive")))). I help (even here) truly needy, but have no intention to help lazy scoundrels. Period.

[Intell]

^ I am not rich (my present $700/month isn't too much even for Russia), and not greedy. Whether i am sinful and awful - it's not for you to decide))). I help people when i can, but i don't think anyone (even rich) must pay as taxes 80% of their incomes after some value. Slightly progressive scale - yes, but word "slightly" is a key for me (in fact - there is flat 13% tax in Russia now, so i am a "progressive")))). I help (even here) truly needy, but have no intention to help lazy scoundrels. Period.

Lazy scoundrels, yes homeless people are lazy scoundrels. Everyone that is on welfare are lazy scoundrels. Everyone that is poor are lazy scoundrels.

Even if they're lazy scoundrels, a society and government has the obligation to help such people not die or be left homeless, or be in poverty, as a key aspect of the welfare state. If they decide to remain poor, after that, that is their laziness, but I doubt the vast majority of people that are poor or homeless, are lazy, they need guidance, and help from the government, and be rewarded as a person, by a commitment of a strong, and secure welfare state.

I am not saying you are sinful or awful, I am saying that not paying tax, to help the least fortunate, when you have the money to help, is a sinful action and a sinful thought. Such actions are sinful, such actions are of greed, and such actions are immoral, you may have a different opinion, but that is view of universal morality.

[smoltchanov]

^ Obviously we will never agree. Sp, let's end this "discussion". We both will stick to our opinions....

[Figueira]

Can you at least stop the "If you don't like Baker you're a partisan hack" charade?