Why do you like Bush? [Archive]

vwcruisn

Jul 22, 2004, 07:42 PM

I like Bush for the following reasons:

His policies and actions as President have had such an effect here at home and abroad that it has served as a wake-up call to many. Previously unaligned or apathetic people have taken notice because of the seriousness of the actions being taken by GW, and the perceived direction this country is headed in and made efforts to effect change.

Most of all though, this has all forced the world to take a good look at the potential danger or recklessness of America, to see it for what it actually is, not what they'd hope it would be.

And for Americans, this has forced us to look in the collective mirror and see ourselves for who we really are, even if the site is grotesque...

Bush is a catalyst for the long-needed re-assessment of our values and priorities as a Nation and as individuals, and a re-alignment of how we'd like to see ourselves (and be seen) and the considerably uglier reality...

I was going to say I like him because his administration has been an eye opener for many (including myself), who had never really been interested in politics. Bush has angered so many, that we now have no choice but to get involved and take action.

I believe blackfox did a better job summing up what I had to say. :D

Sayhey

Jul 22, 2004, 07:52 PM

I don't.

iLikeMyiMac

Jul 22, 2004, 08:18 PM

So I will not be voting for Bush in November (contain your surprise, folks). I wouldn't expect you to with an avatar like yours. ;)

I'm voting for Bush because I'm conservative and a Republican. Also, he is pro-life and appoints conservative judges. Some of the things he has done I don't agree with like the no child left behind act because it didn't work too well. Also I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act.

blackfox

Jul 22, 2004, 08:36 PM

I don't.
hey!
So succintness is not my strongpoint...so sue me (while you still can)...

vwc, you did a fine job elucidating your point...

mactastic

Jul 22, 2004, 09:41 PM

Because he's given Jon Stewart so very much good material.

usmcdiorio

Jul 23, 2004, 12:49 AM

I like Bush for the following reasons:

1. He is man who stands for what he believes in, nothing more nothing less. He has faced difficulties yet remained firm in his beliefs.

2. I generally support his policies, including his foreign policy, and his tax cuts. Just today Alan Greenspan said that Bush's three major tax cuts helped the country avoid a severe recession. I also go along with the conservative belief that I know how to spend my money better than the government. I don't support everything the President does. The pursuit of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage is a bit over the top, but I think no matter how hard he tries, it will always fail in the senate anyway. I am pro-choice, to a point. Partial birth abortion is undeniably murdering a living baby, and I would never support something so atrocious.

3. War in Iraq. Can relate to number one. I believe Bush received faulty intelligence, and the case for invading Iraq was made very strongly. The Iraq fervor was prevalent among many democrats as well including John Edwards who at the time placed Iraq, and Sadaam Hussein among the top threats to the U.S.. Regardless of the state of the war, Bush has not faltered, and I believe is a President who has the courage to finish Iraq correctly, not leave it like Vietnam and call it a victory. By the way, Iraq is not Vietnam, has never been Vietnam, nor will it ever be Vietnam.

4. Education. Regarding vouchers. Vouchers would give students living in poor neighborhoods with poor schools a choice. I do not see why so many Democrats are so fervently against them. And as much as I hated taking them, standardized tests are a kind of accountability, and accountability of some sort should be required.

5. Now the campaign trail. So far, from the commercials I've learned that John Kerry was in Vietnam. John Kerry was wounded in Vietnam. John Kerry has people that were in Vietnam with him that support him. That's great, it really is. I appreciate that John Kerry is a veteran of the armed services, but that tells me nothing of his ability to be president. Now I'll admit I haven't seen many Bush commercials, but what I have seen focuses on the issues.

6. The undeniable fact is John Kerry is not a man that even most democrats wanted or want now to be president of the united states. He has an appalling voting record in the senate to say the least, and has taken both sides of too many issues to count. Even among democrats he is considered ultra-liberal and out of touch with mainstream America. You can bet the Clintons don't want him. Hillary is almost definitely running in 2008, unless kerry gets elected.

Well that's enough for now, I hope I gave you a view of why conservatives like Bush, and sorry if I brought Kerry into it too much. If you have any questions on different issues, just ask. :)

jayb2000

Jul 23, 2004, 10:17 AM

I'm voting for Bush because I'm conservative and a Republican. Also, he is pro-life and appoints conservative judges. Some of the things he has done I don't agree with like the no child left behind act because it didn't work too well. Also I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act.

OK, pro-life I can understand, but what do you mean by conservative?
That used to mean smaller government and balanced budgets (i.e the Gingrich Contract with America), but Bush has not done either of those.
Not trying to put down Bush, just curious how you define conservative.

If you voted, did you vote for McCain or Bush in the primaries?

romerom

Jul 23, 2004, 06:31 PM

I'm voting for Bush because I'm conservative and a Republican. Also, he is pro-life and appoints conservative judges. Some of the things he has done I don't agree with like the no child left behind act because it didn't work too well. Also I'm not a big fan of the Patriot Act.

how about your voting for bush because your uninformed. how about your voting for bush because your blind to the real issues. how about your voting for bush because you LIKE putting our soldiers in harms way. how about that?

blackfox

Jul 23, 2004, 06:59 PM

how about your voting for bush because your uninformed. how about your voting for bush because your blind to the real issues. how about your voting for bush because you LIKE putting our soldiers in harms way. how about that?
Now, Now...let's be civil shall we?

ILMI's post was fair and reasoned, even If I don't agree with his values or the fact that he may be overlooking some major problems with Bush not related to Partisanship, I am glad to hear his/her opinion.

You come very close to a personal attack here, and that is a forum no-no.
I can understand if you are angry/frustrated with Bush...many of us here are...but do not take it out on someone voiceing a legitimate opinion. Explain your position on the matter, not a polemic and reactionary rhetorical critique of his.

Thankyou in advance...

themadchemist

Jul 23, 2004, 07:32 PM

hey!
So succintness is not my strongpoint...so sue me (while you still can)...

vwc, you did a fine job elucidating your point...

I think he was referring to liking Bush, not to your post.

I wouldn't in a million years vote for Bush, but I like the fact that he is vocally in support of an independent Palestinian state. I think that's an enormous step on the part of an American President. There's little else that I can say about him. I don't think he has good judgment or integrity.

Thomas Veil

Jul 23, 2004, 07:34 PM

Sayhey

Jul 23, 2004, 11:06 PM

hey!
So succintness is not my strongpoint...so sue me (while you still can)...

blackfox, I wasn't referring to your post. Sorry, for any confusion.

blackfox

Jul 23, 2004, 11:50 PM

blackfox, I wasn't referring to your post. Sorry, for any confusion.
No worrys, I am often easily confused...except when it comes to something as relating to the topic of this thread...then I am the epitome of clarity...

m.r.m.

Jul 24, 2004, 07:55 AM

well, there haven´t been too many pro-bush opinions voiced. :rolleyes:

i actually wonder why it is that so many audibly voice their dissent, but kerry still seems unable to move past bush in the polls. one find so many pro kerry anti bush sigs on all kinds of fora, so many blogs and threads, but nonetheless bush is rock solid betwenn 42-50% (if such a thing can be considered rock solid, but point is kerry isn´t doing better). i certainly hope, bush doesn´t get re-elected, but i suspect osam bin laden will "surprisingly" be captured shortly before the election and bush will ride out the following patriotic wave.

usmcdiorio

Jul 24, 2004, 01:16 PM

i certainly hope, bush doesn´t get re-elected, but i suspect osam bin laden will "surprisingly" be captured shortly before the election and bush will ride out the following patriotic wave.

You actually could be more right than you think. It's my theory that the Bush administration will come out with something major, either the capture of Osama bin laden or the discovery of WMD's, right before the election. Something of the scale of Osama bin Laden would almost definitley push the undecided voters over into the Republican camp. I can't say I would be disappointed if this happened, both for the reason that we made a signifigant advancement in the war on terror, and two, I want to see W reelected. I would hope citizens from both parties would at least be happy for reason one. Democrats obviously wouldn't like reason two.

skunk

Jul 25, 2004, 09:05 AM

I think Bush will lead America to better places
Which "better places"? On what evidence? Please explain this seemingly faith-based statement to those of us who haven't the faintest idea of his second term proposals.

mactastic

Jul 25, 2004, 10:08 AM

As one of the very few Bush supporters on this board I will tell you guys why.

I like Bush because he doesn't lead by popular opinion. (Unlike our last president.) If you always follow public opinion then you are not a leader, you are just executing the poll results.

You realize you're talking about the guy who only enacted the DoHS after Rove realized Bush was getting hammered in the polls. Also that Bush is the guy who opposed the 9/11 commission initially but then flip-flopped when he was taking too much flak from the public (ie. polls). Please don't give us this line of crap. Both candidates rely on polls to 'triangulate' their positions. To say otherwise is totally wrong. Bush has no moral high ground in this area, which is why I feel the public MUST lie to every pollster they meet.

Do you honestly think the Bush camp doesn't look at poll numbers and plan strategy accordingly?

I think Bush will lead America to better places, and he already has pulled the economy out of a recession. I don't see Kerry doing any great things.

Well, if you think Syria and Iran are better places... ;)

You're entitled to your opinion here, but I don't see Bush doing any great things, and I thought we had agreed that presidents have little to do with the cyclical nature of the economy. At least that's what I was hearing from the right during the Clinton boom years, and the Bush recession years. But hey, I'm not surprised Bush would try to take credit for it. Clinton did the same. It's the blame they try to avoid.

zimv20

Jul 25, 2004, 01:34 PM

I like Bush because he doesn't lead by popular opinion.
frankly, i'm a little surprised you believe that.

Waluigi

Jul 25, 2004, 06:24 PM

If Bush lead by popular opinion he would have never invaded Iraq

Wow! The Bush administration distorted the facts, and repeated lies to convince the public that we needed to go to war with Iraq. He did that to get the popular opinion, and once he did, he went to war. Seriously, the percent of people approving a war with Iraq went from almost nothing to the majority of Americans over the course of a few months of blatant propaganda spitting from the mouths of the RNC, and repeated over and over and over by the media. This is a president like all politicians in the regard they lead by what is most likely to get them reelected.

--Waluigi

zimv20

Jul 25, 2004, 09:27 PM

He certainly didn't invade Iraq to get reelected.
i firmly believe that was one of the reasons for the invasion.

Neserk

Jul 25, 2004, 09:40 PM

i like him because his policies fuel my anger. and anger = art.

ROFL... I'm much more into politics since he was appointed! I protested his appointment for well over a year (maybe 2!) by keeping the Gore/Lieberman bumper stickers on my car!

IJ Reilly

Jul 25, 2004, 10:02 PM

He certainly didn't invade Iraq to get reelected. Anybody knows that any sustained conflict will result in negative opinion polls. I think he is accelerating turn over to the Iraqis to help his reelection, but if all he wanted was reelection he would have left it at Afghanistan.

This thread is drifting as it was bound to do, but since it has already, I'm going to take strong exception to this statement. In fact the war was fought entirely on a political timetable, which is why Iraq is such a huge debacle today. The administration made the decision to wage this war 18 months ago, in a non-election year, with the expectation that their predictions of quick victory and Iraqi acceptance of the occupation would come true. They'd assumed that by the time the election season rolled around, the story would have migrated to the back pages, and they'd be able to call it a victory for the good guys. This is why they didn't allow the weapons inspections to continue, as most of the rest of the world community thought they should. That carried the danger of pushing the war into an election year.

I would also call your attention to the fact that a majority of Americans thought the war was worthwhile, until recently. You can bet that if Bush knew in March 2003 that public opinion would turn against the war just in time for the election, that he probably would have become a convert to the value of continued weapons inspections.

Neserk

Jul 25, 2004, 10:04 PM

I would also call your attention to the fact that a majority of Americans thought the war was worthwhile, until recently.

Was thinking the same thing...

romerom

Jul 27, 2004, 02:36 AM

bush is nothing more than the extreme right wing's puppet.

he does anything and everything for the wealthiest 1%. he does not care about the rest of us. what he's doing is hooking him and his friends up with as many breaks as possible before he gets kicked out of office. i bet that he is shocked to death that he hasn't been given the can. i think he's just trying to see what he can get away with. and guess what everybody.. he's getting away with it.

oh and if your a republican and your NOT in the wealthiest 1% - what is going through your mind? i mean.. there are even people IN the wealthiest 1% that think this guy is crazy.. and you? your getting screwed withOUT the reacharound and what are you doing? saying "thank you sir, may i have another!"

what are the issues that even matter to you people?

how about healthcare? ok great.. you got healthcare right now.. your covered right? WRONG. if you lose your job - you have about 6-12 months of CORBA which btw you have to pay for out of your own pocket - and then what? well crap you need to go find some other insurance at twice the premium. and what if your injured? disability right? well what side do you think creates those social programs? THE DEMOCRATS. if the republicans running things now had their way - you would not get your disability. you would have to pay their mommy and daddies companies to insure you.

that is just one small example. what other social programs are out there? how about the public school system? republicans want you out of public school and into private schools. they want you to pay for your schooling out of your own pocket.

republicans stand for small government and big business.

so who do you trust more? the ceo at your company who just laid off an entire department and shipped their work off to india to bump their stock price up a quarter point?

or do you trust your elected officials? your elected officials have a checks and balances system in place that is SUPPOSED to keep things like what our country is knee deep in now from happening.

but guess what? REPUBLICANS are running the show right now. ya know why? because its easier to become say.. a senator when you got big business funding your campaign and getting your name out there. democrats for the most part have to rely on individual contributions from citizens. elected republicans NEED to start wearing clothes that resemble the advertising on stock cars.. BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN BOUGHT! THEY ARE FOR SALE!!

they will vote on bills that help out the people who contributed to their campaign. and they're usually NOT the nicest companies.

"well gee, pa! theres a whole bunch of oil in that there iraq.. don't we have some friends in the oil business?"

man.. all i should NEED to say is "halliburton".. you republicans DO know that vice president dick cheney used to run that place don't ya? can you see any other reason why when the time came for a company to be chosen to help rebuild iraq - the president awarded a NO BID CONTRACT with halliburton? that means that basically.. halliburton said.. "what is the absolute most that you can afford to pay.. ok now triple that and thats what it'll cost ya" and other companies didn't have the chance to jump in and say - "i'll do it for 1/8th of the cost!"

whose payin that bill? we are.

sure, the wealthiest 1% are payin some taxes on it..

but it is the majority of us - the 99% who aren't so wealthy that are paying the bulk of it.

anyways i could go on forever - can someone PLEASE explain to me the issues that are making them vote republican?

mischief

Jul 27, 2004, 10:29 AM

Though I can't list them in a polite discussion. :D ;)

But I have to say it must be neatly trimmed or it tickles my nose.

Oops! You meant Dubyaw... My bad. :eek:

Lyle

Jul 27, 2004, 10:59 AM

bush is nothing more than the extreme right wing's puppet.Good work. Looking over your rant, it appears that you forgot to use the phrases "war about oil" and "chilling effect", but other than that you pretty much covered all of the DNC talking points.

yellow

Jul 27, 2004, 11:11 AM

I like his eloquence. He's a durned good speaky guy.

romerom

Jul 27, 2004, 02:25 PM

Though I can't list them in a polite discussion. :D ;)

But I have to say it must be neatly trimmed or it tickles my nose.

Oops! You meant Dubyaw... My bad. :eek:

lol! who doesn't like that bush

romerom

Jul 27, 2004, 02:27 PM

Good work. Looking over your rant, it appears that you forgot to use the phrases "war about oil" and "chilling effect", but other than that you pretty much covered all of the DNC talking points.

i forgot to mention the patriot act..

check this article i found today on slashdot about the patriot act being used for something other than terrorism... be afraid
http://www.sg1archive.com/nightmare.shtml

yellow

Jul 27, 2004, 02:43 PM

i forgot to mention the patriot act..

check this article i found today on slashdot about the patriot act being used for something other than terrorism... be afraid
http://www.sg1archive.com/nightmare.shtml

There was a blurb in today's "SANS PrivacyBits (July 27, 2004 Vol. 2, Num. 30)" about the USA PATRIOT act being used to find and convict a child molester and his wife. Now I'm all for locking up pedophiles, but I don't feel that this man is a terrorist who threatens the US. At least, if he could be deemed a "terrorist", then apparently my mental dictionary has the incorrect definition of terrorist.

The blurb points to this article:

http://www.wkyt.com/global/story.asp?s=2041760&ClientType=Printable

uvex

Jul 27, 2004, 03:52 PM

Because democrats make me want to vomit.

skunk

Jul 27, 2004, 03:55 PM

Thank you for your helpful, insightful and cogently-argued contribution.

zimv20

Jul 27, 2004, 03:55 PM

Because democrats make me want to vomit.
you are a true patriot. will you be my friend?

blackfox

Jul 27, 2004, 03:56 PM

Because democrats make me want to vomit.
well you know, vomiting is often induced to rid the body of toxins, so perhaps the Democrats are doing you a favor...

Seriously, care to elaborate on your position?

jayb2000

Jul 27, 2004, 04:56 PM

So far in almost 50 posts we have vomit, sex jokes, and a lot of ad hominem attacks on Kerry or Bush. Oh, and Bush is hardly a 'man of the people'. He went to the same college as Kerry and his family has more money than Kerry's ever did, until Kerry married Theresa Heinz.

One person said pro-life and 'conservative', at least they have a solid reason, I may not agree with it, but at least they said one positive thing.

Is there anyone on this board who can post a reasoned, intelligent reply on why they support Bush's policies? "He does not lead by popularity" could be said about any President, depending on the issue, it does not make them good or bad. Sometimes doing the right thing can be popular, other times not popular. (And the war was very popular after people had been told there was a serious threat. It only became unpopular when it became apparent none of those threats was real.)

If anyone wants to PM me to have an offline conversation, that's fine. I was just really trying to understand why anyone except multi-millionaires and pro-lifers would support this administration.

IJ Reilly

Jul 27, 2004, 05:07 PM

Because Kerry is a poser. He pretends to be a man of the people, but he is not.

The "poser" charge makes a comeback. Show me where Kerry has ever claimed to be a "man of the people" (whatever that means).

blackfox

Jul 27, 2004, 05:08 PM

Jay, I believe Kerry went to Boston College and not Yale (like Bush)...I could be wrong though...

I tried my best to respond reasonably to your request, but I am not a Bush supporter...also Stelliform's response was perfectly reasonable in method, although you may feel that his claims were unreasonable...there is a difference...

jayb2000

Jul 27, 2004, 05:37 PM

Jay, I believe Kerry went to Boston College and not Yale (like Bush)...I could be wrong though...

They both went to Yale, both were in Skull and Bones. Dean went to Yale as well, and was even in some social club with Bush.

I guess my problem with Stelliforms' arguments were some were "Kerry is a poser" and others were like this:
"Also Kerry doesn't support minorities, while Bush does. Bush has more high ranking minorities on his staff than any president before him. Kerry has no high ranking miniorities on his campaign staff. Why should we think that this will change when he is in the white house."

Campaign staffs and cabinet members are almost never the same. Its like sending in the special forces and then marines during a battle, then you send in the army to run it. They each have their own jobs. If the argument was based on Kerry's voting record in the Senate and how you define "supporting minorities" (like affirmative action, student loans, improving schools, cutting welfare, etc), then I would agree it is a reasoned argument.

The editorial referenced says Bush put an end to racial profiling. That only happened after public outcry forced him to. He stood by Trent Lott again until public opinion started to hurt him.

If Kerry is elected and then nominates no minorities to any high ranking positions, I will fully agree with that argument and then push my representatives and Kerry to do so. But attacking him for something he has not done is ridiculous.

romerom

Jul 27, 2004, 06:02 PM

Why should the government be required to pay for insurance? I paid for my wife's cobra plan when I was in college. I didn't die. I got a job and I paid my dues. People are losing all responsibility for taking care of themselves.

how about - BECAUSE WE PAY TAXES. republicans want governments to spend our tax dollars on their companies versus spending it on social programs that benefit the people that pay those taxes. but if we ever get nationalized healthcare - you should continue to pay for it since you seem to like paying taxes AND paying for things which should just be there.

Then why did Bush push for more money for education, and he got more for education than Bill Clinton did in twice the time.

whats with all the school testing? schools that don't pass tests don't get money? so they can become even worse? so they can only afford to pay their teachers less which subsequently would make a teacher look for a job elsewhere.. then you have a bunch of pissed off teachers who can make more money working at mcdonalds than with their degree. so then what.. the school sucks, people get stupid, they don't end up going to college or having any career aspirations and then what? they rob you. what about no child left behind? i know it was for after school programs but those programs really help people with kids who can't afford day care and don't want to just let their kids run around the street and get into trouble. these programs keep kids occupied and off the streets. be glad that you have enough money to take care of yourself because if you ever slip up.. the republicans DO NOT have your back..

I trust companies way more that I trust government. Big government = corruption. It is a simple formula and always true. I come from a state where corruption is rampant. (By the way it is mostly democrat, so the republicans do not corner the market on corruption.) Big companies may have corruption too, but I am not forced to give large sums of money to be wasted by big companies.
uhhhh ok whose more corrupt ? democrats or republicans? at least we have a say in whose running the government. and that money your "wasting" wouldn't be wasted if democrats were in office. right now our money is spent funding a war... making the people at halliburton rich. i dont know about you.. but i'd rather it be paying for my future.. nationalized healthcare, social security and other such programs.

Because Kerry is a poser. He pretends to be a man of the people, but he is not. I doubt he ever had to earn a living, or that he has ever had a conviction that he stuck to. He is offering the moon in his speaches at the DNC, yet will he come through? Will he stick to his guns and deliver on his promises? Can he be trusted? I think he will change his mind on the promises. (Shall we say, flip flop?)

kerry is a poser? c'mon now. do you even KNOW where he stands on the issues? he's for the people, buddy. thats what being a democrat is.

Also Kerry doesn't support minorities, while Bush does. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040721/news_1e21navar.html) Bush has more high ranking minorities on his staff than any president before him. Kerry has no high ranking miniorities on his campaign staff. Why should we think that this will change when he is in the white house.

minorities, shminorities.. give that racism crap up.. the democrats are the most diverse political party there is. republicans are what? white protestants for the most part. check for yourself. look in the crowd at the democratic national convention.. you don't get any more diverse. all bush does is support the rich. condalisa or however you spell her name and colin powell are both very very well off. i actually feel that colin powell is a good guy and was misled.. i dont know if there is any coming back from it though.. he's moved to the dark side.

romerom

Jul 27, 2004, 06:09 PM

One person said pro-life and 'conservative', at least they have a solid reason, I may not agree with it, but at least they said one positive thing.

ok i'm echoing clintons speech here but.. WHAT IS CONSERVATIVE about going from clinton's surplus into spending us into a HUGE deficit ??

i understand pro-life arguments.. well hey.. i dont necessarily agree with abortion.. i.e. i dont feel that loose women should be allowed to have abortion after abortion.. however, i do feel that in the case of a rape or something extreme that it is justified. but see, this is where the seperation of church and state sorta should come into play. i understand that alot of religous people believe that it is just completely wrong.. and i can understand that. but we live in a free country. just because you think its wrong doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong for everybody else.

i understand gun owners arguments.. well damn yall.. i own a gun. i bet quite a few democrats own weapons.

what else is there? what else does "conservatism" entail?

takao

Jul 27, 2004, 06:13 PM

well... i will only make comments on the foreign policy because i'm not living in USA

positive about bush (aka. 'things i like'):
+more support for international co-operation between police
+different position in the israelpalestinian conflict (but don't quote me on that)
+- operation in afganistan,but a minus for the rather bad afterwards-plan

negative things:
i will skip that because we all know what i will have to list here (of course some things were just stupid things by rumsfeld etc. and not bush directly)

so overall it's a rather negative image on foreign policy...

carbonmotion

Jul 27, 2004, 07:54 PM

blackfox

Jul 27, 2004, 09:56 PM

Now I will make public my reasons for voting for Bush. Pick them apart all that you want, but they are why I am voting for Bush.

1. I agree with Bush on gun control
2. I am pro life
3. I think Bush is handling the war on terrorism appropriately. (including Iraq)
4. I agree with the tax cuts. (Although they should be larger)
5. Bush has many minorities in his cabinet.
6. Bush is a nicer guy than Kerry.
7. Bush is more conservative than Kerry
8. I think Bush will do a much better job running the country in 2004-2008 than Kerry would
9. I think Kerry and Edwards look goofy (Which really isn't a reason, but it is true.) :D

First of all Stelliform, thankyou for posting your reasons for your vote come November. Although I disagree with your reasons, I will do my best to be respectful while doing so...
1. This is largely a non-issue to me, I admit...although lifting the assualt-weapon ban seems to serve no decent purpose, so I disagree with that.
2. No argument there...I am pro-choice, and this is an unwinnable argument for the both of us.
3. Here we will also disagree. While I felt the US military performed admirably in both Afghanistan and Iraq (as Military engagements), I did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq, especially in light of erroneous reasons given to do so. I agreed with Afghanistan. I did not feel that the US military was given enough training or supplies to adequately do the job of post-war peacekeeping and rebuilding, and that the Bush Administration misjudged the climate and nature of Iraq and it's people. I feel that Iraq was a distraction from the true goal of finding UBL and Al Qeada and squandered valuable resources (manpower, billions, lives) that are still bogged down in Iraq, not allowing sufficient flexibility for new, more relevant fights in the WOT. I feel Bush should've worked things in a way to include more countries in the goal of fighting the WOT (a common goal, I might add) than the maverick and tangental foray into Iraq and the manner in which that was done.

I also agree with the creation of the Dept. Homeland security, but Bush has not funded it appropriately since it's creation. The enormous amounts of money spent in Iraq could've helped immeasureably here. I also think that it would've been preferable to also fund it instead of pushing tax-cuts, and I believe most people would've gladly made the trade-off. Also, many of things outlined in the 9/11 report that Bush has vowed to implement quickly were well-known and logical steps that he could've implemented over the past three years. I felt he did a good job initially with regards to 9/11 BTW.

4. I do not know if you make over $250,000 a year...if you do not, then Kerry's tax proposals will make no difference to you...as for you wishing they were larger, we have been in a recession, with an expensive couple of wars and the development of a new Domestic Security apparatus...what more do you want? Also, would you trade a tax-cut for the appropriate funding of Domestic Security?

5. This is true. I am not sure of the importance of this especially when many of his policies unduly affect African-Americans, who are statistically poorer...I am of the opinion of finding the best person for the job...if they happen to be white men...they are still the best for the job. If they are from minority groups, then they are still the best fo the job...

6. Well, Clinton was nicer than Dole or Bush Sr, did you vote for him? Although I also enjoy nice people, that does not mean they are necessarily good leaders...

7. Is he? By what measure? Yes Bush supports a pro-life stance, tax-cuts, christian values (supposedly) and a number of other conservative tenets. He has also expanded the size of government, created a new, expensive and unwieldy medicare program, spent like crazy while lowering taxes (not exactly fiscal responsibility) and disregarded his original pledge to give the states more power ( see: gay-marrige amendment ). This is not very conservative. By most measures, Kerry will be more Liberal, but he will also likely be more conservative in many of the latter instances I mentioned. Clinton was actually more conservative than either, again did you vote for him? (he reduced the size of government, got rid of a major entitlement program, lowered taxes...)

8. Judgement call, I guess...but that means you feel he has done a good job so far...I have a hard time seeing it myself...

9. Fine, a concession...they do look a little goofy...but Cheney has always looked disturbing to me, and speaking of "goofy", that is rich considering what Bush looks like...

FWIW...

romerom

Jul 27, 2004, 11:33 PM

By that logic, if we had a smaller government that didn't have as much money, big business wouldn't be a problem.

that doesn't even make any sense - somebody boo this man

The same argument is made against people who are against tax cuts not paying the old tax rate. If I had a choice I would pay more money not to have to deal with Government bureaucracy. That is why I send my kids to Private school. Where we live and the current public school system makes private school a better choice. So I pay twice for my kids to go to school.

i'd rather pay for school ONCE. what are you, some kinda baller?

Nationalized health care would be horrendous. People thought that they hated HMOs, imagine what life would be like with the government calling the shots.

there are already these huge health care companies out there.. what would happen is.. they would bid for a contract with the government.. and the one with the most attractive offer would get the bid.

My wife currently can make more money working at McDonald's than she is at teaching. The problems with throwing money at education is that it never makes it to the students. In New Orleans the have discovered Millions that were being stolen every year. All over the country school districts are discovering more and more corruption. I do not agree with the Federal Government giving money to schools, but at least Bush is trying to make the schools accountable for getting the money to the students.

i would say that it sounds like your county needs some better accounting practices.. but that doesn't necessarily mean that all local governments are as corrupt as yours. and are you trying to say that ceo's aren't corrupt? uhmm kenneth lay? he screwed over sooooooooo many of his employees. alot of which are probably not as rich as you appear to be.

I don't have enough money to back me up, and if I ever slip up I won't be going to the government for help. My church has missions and charities, my family would help me, and my friends would help me. I am not against a 2 year maximum small pay out if you hit hard times, but I do not want our government to get its fat fingers into the medical system. I think the medical system is already overpriced due to lawsuits and people just not paying their medical bills. (that is right, people medical treatment all of the time and just don't pay the bills. And those who pay their bills absorb the cost.)

yea but if there was nationwide FREE healthcare - you wouldn't be paying for anything more than you already are.. they dont even need to raise taxes.. they just gotta quit spending the way they have been and be a bit more CONSERVATIVE

The democrats in my state seems to be wasting lots of my money. Edwin Edwards (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/10/edwards5_10.a.tm/) was just one of them.

Kerry's houses. (http://www.catholicsagainstkerry.com/Homes.html) Now IJ Reilly is right, I cannot find anywhere where Kerry ever said is was a "man of the people". I have found many sites attacking him for portraying himself as someone who understands what average americans, but Kerry himself as never said that he was a man of the people.

Just because democrats of the past have championed minority causes, doesn't mean that they are a diverse group. Even democrats (http://www.phila-tribune.com/052104-3-P1.htm) have complained about Kerry's lack of minorities in high ranking positions in his staff. GWB appointed minorities without anybody challenging him, (unlike Kerry who only started to try to hire minorities after he was called on the lack of diveristy.)

Jay's argument has more teeth than saying "minorities, shminorities.. give that racism crap up.. " And Jay I will concede to you that his cabinet might be different from his campaign staff. There are some who argue that the democrats vote for minority programs to keep their minority vote, while at the same time they restrict access to high positions in the party from minorities.

Now I will make public my reasons for voting for Bush. Pick them apart all that you want, but they are why I am voting for Bush.

1. I agree with Bush on gun control
2. I am pro life
3. I think Bush is handling the war on terrorism appropriately. (including Iraq)
4. I agree with the tax cuts. (Although they should be larger)
5. Bush has many minorities in his cabinet.
6. Bush is a nicer guy than Kerry.
7. Bush is more conservative than Kerry
8. I think Bush will do a much better job running the country in 2004-2008 than Kerry would
9. I think Kerry and Edwards look goofy (Which really isn't a reason, but it is true.) :D

http://www.johnkerry.com/front/images/jk-je-photo.jpg[/QUOTE]

uvex

Jul 28, 2004, 09:53 AM

how about - BECAUSE WE PAY TAXES. republicans want governments to spend our tax dollars on their companies versus spending it on social programs that benefit the people that pay those taxes. but if we ever get nationalized healthcare - you should continue to pay for it since you seem to like paying taxes AND paying for things which should just be there.
Ok, please show me where all of our tax dollars goto "companies".

My company has never seen a cent of this corporate welfare, so I'd be interested where you got that "fact" from. Nationalized healthcare? Yeah that works, just look at Canada. For those not living in a border town (I am in Detroit), Canadians flock, yes flock to our hospitals because of the mess their system is in.

whats with all the school testing? schools that don't pass tests don't get money? so they can become even worse? so they can only afford to pay their teachers less which subsequently would make a teacher look for a job elsewhere.. then you have a bunch of pissed off teachers who can make more money working at mcdonalds than with their degree. so then what.. the school sucks, people get stupid, they don't end up going to college or having any career aspirations and then what? they rob you. what about no child left behind? i know it was for after school programs but those programs really help people with kids who can't afford day care and don't want to just let their kids run around the street and get into trouble. these programs keep kids occupied and off the streets. be glad that you have enough money to take care of yourself because if you ever slip up.. the republicans DO NOT have your back..

Where is it an inalienable(sp?) right to have the government to have your back. You are preaching communism my friend, and there is a suburb in Beijing that you can move yourself and family to to meet others who share your ideas. This is my problem with democrats, the what has the government done for me lately mentality. Economic redistribution of wealth is nothing more than a marxist idea (theory really because it has never worked), and well, we have seen how well socialism and communism have fared in the real world, a world where many liberals have yet to set foot in.

uhhhh ok whose more corrupt ? democrats or republicans? at least we have a say in whose running the government. and that money your "wasting" wouldn't be wasted if democrats were in office. right now our money is spent funding a war... making the people at halliburton rich. i dont know about you.. but i'd rather it be paying for my future.. nationalized healthcare, social security and other such programs.

Corrupt, who was the last sitting pres to be impeached...nuff said.

kerry is a poser? c'mon now. do you even KNOW where he stands on the issues? he's for the people, buddy. thats what being a democrat is.

Poser, as in is a well documented flip flopper. His record stands by itself, there should be no argument here, he is "for" whatever his polls tell him he is for. He has no moral compass and that scares me.

minorities, shminorities.. give that racism crap up.. the democrats are the most diverse political party there is. republicans are what? white protestants for the most part. check for yourself. look in the crowd at the democratic national convention.. you don't get any more diverse. all bush does is support the rich. condalisa or however you spell her name and colin powell are both very very well off. i actually feel that colin powell is a good guy and was misled.. i dont know if there is any coming back from it though.. he's moved to the dark side.

Yeah, try backing that up with fact and not your fantasy world makings of race relations.
Is there a website you liberals get this crazy rhetoric from? I ask because it is some sort of verbatim template that you all use.

jayb2000

Jul 28, 2004, 09:57 AM

takao

Jul 28, 2004, 11:14 AM

Where is it an inalienable(sp?) right to have the government to have your back. You are preaching communism my friend, and there is a suburb in Beijing that you can move yourself and family to to meet others who share your ideas. This is my problem with democrats, the what has the government done for me lately mentality. Economic redistribution of wealth is nothing more than a marxist idea (theory really because it has never worked), and well, we have seen how well socialism and communism have fared in the real world, a world where many liberals have yet to set foot in.

turbo-capitalism didn't work either.. so what ? ;)

most democracies in the world work in a social-democratic (recognize the difference between social and socialistic) way and they turn out fine...

and BTW: your argumentation line with:
your preferring social democracy -> YOU'RE A COMMIE !!!!! -> leave the country if you disagree/don't accept the status quo -> democrats are commie-friends
was amusing and saved my day ;)

don't get me wrong,i don't like communism either
but pure capitalism in the form of (excuse the expression) blowing sugar into some companies asses isn't acceptable either..both aren't the holy grail ..so can you please stop your crusade ;)

the ideas from marx (and engels etc.) still hold their purpose today ... if you like it or not doesn't matter...
_I_ choose grey over black and white everyday ... and so should you ...

black-and-white-thinking leads to waving flags at parades ,burning books and invading other countries in 'self defense'

ask yourself "Do we sit in the saddle, Or are we just cattle" (http://lyrics.duble.com/K/kmfdmkeinmehrheitfurdiemitleidlyrics/kmfdmkeinmehrheitfurdiemitleidsearchanddestroylyrics.htm)

yellow

Jul 28, 2004, 11:29 AM

Mmmmmmmmmm... capitalist dictatorship... [drool]

mischief

Jul 28, 2004, 11:44 AM

War on Homelessness: Failure
War on Drugs: Crack anyone?
War on Terrorism: So far we've made it EASIER for Muslim extremists to recruit in the third world.

The thing that's lacking is context. Attacking Muslim countries just makes things worse. THese are not westerners we're dealing with. Their Moralle structure is quite different.

jefhatfield

Jul 28, 2004, 11:54 AM

Thanks Stelliform, for some real reasons. I may not agree with all of them, but at least they were not "bush rox" or "kerry sux".

I do have one question. You said:
"3. I think Bush is handling the war on terrorism appropriately. (including Iraq)"

What does Iraq have to do with the war on Terrorism? There was no link between Iraq and 9/11, and, unlike Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Pakistan, and Libya, we have not found any evidence that they were directly supporting any terrorists that had or were trying to attack America.

It just seems that with 150k troops and 150+ billion dollars we could have been more efficient with our resources.

bush made a gamble hoping things would have gone more smoothly...it started out well and it looked like we routed them and there would be little resistance

true believers in bush, like former speaker of the house newt gingrich, are now no so happy with bush and his war in iraq

and now there are many sides against us and really no way to retaliate easily...we are not fighting a foreign state with a standing army...now, with w's war on iraq, we have a whole new band of terrorists to fight

bush should have put his resources into fighting our original enemy, al qaeda...many may have forgotten september 11th, but to me, it's the reason why i think we should band together... i thought bush would deploy troops for the next several years going after bin laden instead of using most of our military to settle an old score of his father's administration

i liked bush and his foreign policy for a short time after the attack on the world trade centers...i liked the formation of the department of homeland security

hey mr. president, what happened?

zimv20

Jul 28, 2004, 12:12 PM

I think Iraq's real purpose (for our interests) is to draw terrorist fighters to our military. This way they are making their attacks there and not on our soil. (also attacks against a muslim country might weaken their resolve.)

I think it also was the hope of the administration that the terrorists will be too busy mounting resistance in Iraq to have time for other efforts.
i think those are terrible strategies. as in, maybe 9/11 was done to draw all christians to the US.

this kind of thinking ignores the reality that actions create disenfranchisement, and disenfranchisement creates terrorists. if the tactic of killing all terrrorists worked, israel would be living in peace today.

a serious rethinking of our approach needs to happen.

Rower_CPU

Jul 28, 2004, 12:55 PM

Quick reminder for some relative newcomers to the political forums - please read and follow the site rules (http://forums.macrumors.com/announcement.php?s=&forumid=4) and political forum guidelines (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=79515).

Thanks :)

Thomas Veil

Jul 28, 2004, 01:20 PM

i forgot to mention the patriot act..

check this article i found today on slashdot about the patriot act being used for something other than terrorism... be afraid
http://www.sg1archive.com/nightmare.shtml
Holy crap, that is truly frightening...and exactly the sort of civil rights issue liberals worry about (and conservatives used to).

Where is it an inalienable(sp?) right to have the government to have your back. You are preaching communism my friend, and there is a suburb in Beijing that you can move yourself and family to to meet others who share your ideas.
No inalienable right...but if it's the preference of the people to have a safety net in place in certain areas of their lives, so what? Nowhere in our constitution does it say that we are required to live an existence where, if you happen to fall on hard times and are starving to death, too bad sucker, I've got mine and you're on your own.

...we have seen how well socialism (has) fared in the real world, a world where many liberals have yet to set foot in.
Oh, I think a lot of liberals have been to Europe.

Poser, as in is a well documented flip flopper. His record stands by itself, there should be no argument here, he is "for" whatever his polls tell him he is for. He has no moral compass and that scares me.
"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson (1865 - 1959)
In other words, if Kerry voted for the Iraq war based on Bush's "facts", then voted against it when it became apparent that those "facts" were untrue, then where's the inconsistency? That's a very straight moral compass.

Taft

Jul 28, 2004, 01:35 PM

Corrupt, who was the last sitting pres to be impeached...nuff said.

Ha! Ann Coulter, is that you?

I love these little quips about Clinton. Suddenly, a BJ in the oval office has turned into "corruption." You want corruption? How about Enron? Anderson Consulting? Halliburton? The RIAA? The MPAA? etc. etc. etc.

This is the problem with talking to idealogues: they purposely obfuscate issues and definitions to make baseless claims. This is EXACTLY what Boortz, Limbaugh and Coulter do. Clinton, on the grand scale of corruption, was not that bad. He was (is?) a philanderer, but that doesn't make a pinch of **** difference in how he performed in office. Your attempt to smear the baseless charge of corruption to him stinks of all that is wrong with political discourse in this country.

Poser, as in is a well documented flip flopper. His record stands by itself, there should be no argument here, he is "for" whatever his polls tell him he is for. He has no moral compass and that scares me.

Wow! How true! And we've never seen flip-flopping from a politician, have we? [/end sarcasm]

Welcome to 21st century politics, my friend. This crap is going to continue until Americans finally wake up to our corrupt, big-money butt-kissing, system of politics. And if you think, for even a second, that EITHER party is less corrupt than the other, you are kidding yourself.

Corruption in our system of government is very much ingrained into "the way things work." And while individual corruption level varies from politician to politician, most are left tainted.

Want a poster-boy for Republican corruption? Orrin Hatch is pretty well in the pocket of media conglomerates. Does that serve his constituency well? To show that I see both sides, I could say the very same things (to a lesser extend, based on his voting record) about Joe Liberman.

... you all use.

[monotone voice]
I am liberal #472-678-8976.
No war for oil.
Republicans are racists.
Bush eats babies.
Clinton is god.
Clinton is god.
Clinton is god.
...
Vote Hillary!
[/monotone voice]

That's what you think of me, isn't it?

Taft

mischief

Jul 28, 2004, 01:39 PM

It's easy to have rapid and efficient service in a system where most people don't have coverage at all and therefore must go without.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-154.html

Check out those numbers and think about how crowded things would be if all those folks and their kids could go in for maintenance care like those with coverage.

It'd be just like the Emergency rooms are... where those without coverage go when their lack of access to preventive care leaves them high and dry for an alternative.

It'd be crowded.... yep... But then we'd all be able to have a more level playing field for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Think about how many less Homeless and Felons we'd have with Universal Mental Health access.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 28, 2004, 01:43 PM

1. what about no child left behind? i know it was for after school programs but those programs really help people with kids who can't afford day care and don't want to just let their kids run around the street and get into trouble. these programs keep kids occupied and off the streets. be glad that you have enough money to take care of yourself because if you ever slip up.. the republicans DO NOT have your back..

2.uhhhh ok whose more corrupt ? democrats or republicans? at least we have a say in whose running the government. and that money your "wasting" wouldn't be wasted if democrats were in office. right now our money is spent funding a war... making the people at halliburton rich. i dont know about you.. but i'd rather it be paying for my future..

3. nationalized healthcare, social security and other such programs.

4. kerry is a poser? c'mon now. do you even KNOW where he stands on the issues? he's for the people, buddy. thats what being a democrat is.

5. minorities, shminorities.. give that racism crap up.. the democrats are the most diverse political party there is. republicans are what? white protestants for the most part. check for yourself. look in the crowd at the democratic national convention.. you don't get any more diverse. all bush does is support the rich. condalisa or however you spell her name and colin powell are both very very well off. i actually feel that colin powell is a good guy and was misled.. i dont know if there is any coming back from it though.. he's moved to the dark side.

1. i don't get if you're for or against no child left behind? if you are for it, cool. you realize bush supports it too (though i realize his funding of it is weak). if you're against it, cool. you realize kerry voted for it, right?

i personally think it places too much importance on standardized tests. which you kinda imply at some point...?

2. they are both corrupt. i'm not sure how you think that democrats have any more say in who their nominee will be than republicans...?

3. kerry for nationalized healthcare? you might want to check your facts on that one.... or maybe you're thinking of nader

4. being a democrat= being for the people??? hahahahahhahahahahahah
hahahahah

hahahahahah

surely you don't think that being in some group automatically makes you something. i'm sorry, but while i don't fault anyone (edwards, kerry, etc) for being wealthy, i don't give them a clear slate as being "for the people" just because they have a donkey on their banner

5. you mention rice and powell as being rich and therefore not really representative of their race (or something???) i'm not sure how that matters when kerry/edwards are just as rich...

you are correct (in my opinion) in saying that the republicans aren't really that diverse. but doesn't make sense to use the black folks' wealth to make that point

uvex

Jul 28, 2004, 03:21 PM

Holy crap, that is truly frightening...and exactly the sort of civil rights issue liberals worry about (and conservatives used to).

No inalienable right...but if it's the preference of the people to have a safety net in place in certain areas of their lives, so what? Nowhere in our constitution does it say that we are required to live an existence where, if you happen to fall on hard times and are starving to death, too bad sucker, I've got mine and you're on your own.

Oh, I think a lot of liberals have been to Europe.

Actually, it says, life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. What that means, is that we will give you the environment to suceed, you...by hard work and determination, have every opportunity to be whatever you want to be. I have never heard any republican say "f you happen to fall on hard times and are starving to death, too bad sucker, I've got mine and you're on your own." I don't believe I know anyone as heartless as you are making me out to be. I sympathize for those on hard times, hell my dad when working for the detroit auto industry has had his share of hard times so that is an ignorant statement I think.

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson (1865 - 1959)
In other words, if Kerry voted for the Iraq war based on Bush's "facts", then voted against it when it became apparent that those "facts" were untrue, then where's the inconsistency? That's a very straight moral compass.
Thank you for proving my point. Bush also did not have the "facts" from our gutted (by Clinton) intelligence community, so he voted for it also, before it became apparent that he had faulty intelligence. Look, when you make a decision you go with the best information you have at that particular moment in time. Bush did, and was man enough to admit it. Kerry has yet to explain his flipflops (on other issues besides Iraq)

uvex

Jul 28, 2004, 03:29 PM

Ha! Ann Coulter, is that you?

I love these little quips about Clinton. Suddenly, a BJ in the oval office has turned into "corruption." You want corruption? How about Enron? Anderson Consulting? Halliburton? The RIAA? The MPAA? etc. etc. etc.

This is the problem with talking to idealogues: they purposely obfuscate issues and definitions to make baseless claims. This is EXACTLY what Boortz, Limbaugh and Coulter do. Clinton, on the grand scale of corruption, was not that bad. He was (is?) a philanderer, but that doesn't make a pinch of **** difference in how he performed in office. Your attempt to smear the baseless charge of corruption to him stinks of all that is wrong with political discourse in this country.

Wow! How true! And we've never seen flip-flopping from a politician, have we? [/end sarcasm]

Welcome to 21st century politics, my friend. This crap is going to continue until Americans finally wake up to our corrupt, big-money butt-kissing, system of politics. And if you think, for even a second, that EITHER party is less corrupt than the other, you are kidding yourself.

Corruption in our system of government is very much ingrained into "the way things work." And while individual corruption level varies from politician to politician, most are left tainted.

Want a poster-boy for Republican corruption? Orrin Hatch is pretty well in the pocket of media conglomerates. Does that serve his constituency well? To show that I see both sides, I could say the very same things (to a lesser extend, based on his voting record) about Joe Liberman.

[monotone voice]
I am liberal #472-678-8976.
No war for oil.
Republicans are racists.
Bush eats babies.
Clinton is god.
Clinton is god.
Clinton is god.
...
Vote Hillary!
[/monotone voice]

That's what you think of me, isn't it?

Taft
Hahahah...that's quite good actually, made me smile. :) It's not what I think of you personally no, but is typical of some of the talks I have had with some (note not all) the democrats I know...

I think it is enough to say that there is plenty of misinformation on both sides, it's just that some people (like you and I and others) sift out the facts from the fiction. But surely you agree, that there are a good majority of folks who take the rhetoric (propaganda) at face value (ie war for oil...I have a few friends that never fail to mention this at least daily to me, drives me nuts) without thinking .... hmmm, boy that sure sounds strange, maybe I should check it out.

sockeatingdryer

Jul 28, 2004, 03:48 PM

OK, pro-life I can understand, but what do you mean by conservative?
That used to mean smaller government and balanced budgets (i.e the Gingrich Contract with America), but Bush has not done either of those.
Not trying to put down Bush, just curious how you define conservative.

If you voted, did you vote for McCain or Bush in the primaries?

I cannot vote due to age, but I'd say I'm politically involved as I do work for the Republican party here... even if it is the southern Republican party... yeesh they scare me sometimes.

You are right, Bush isn't all that fiscally conservative. However, he has had to create a whole new department for the safety of our homeland. That is a step in the right direction. Also, like it or not, he's also having to finance a war.

However, I know that John Kerry has a whole list of potential taxes he's ready to lower the boom on us with. Not good.
And, believe it or not, the Democratic party does not really cater to the 'common man' or the 'minority' like they say they do. In fact, I've never seen a more meticulously race-conscious group of people than the Democratic Party.

Bottom Line: I support Bush because he is more conservative than Kerry... at least Bush is giving money to more effective causes... I'd rather have my money finance Homeland Security than some remote 'art commission.'

romerom

Jul 28, 2004, 03:56 PM

zimv20

Jul 28, 2004, 04:27 PM

However, I know that John Kerry has a whole list of potential taxes he's ready to lower the boom on us with.
he's mentioned he wants to rescind the tax cut to those in the upper bracket, which i assume doesn't include you.

what is the rest of this list?

pseudobrit

Jul 28, 2004, 04:55 PM

at least Bush is giving money to more effective causes... I'd rather have my money finance Homeland Security than some remote 'art commission.'

Just out of curiousity, do you happen to know how much money was spent on Homeland Security as a percentage of how deep the deficit is?

pseudobrit

Jul 28, 2004, 05:02 PM

I don't want them taxed, because I dream that someday I will be up there with them. ;) :D

I think if the average American who thinks this way were to put as much enthusiasm and thought into getting into the upper tax brackets rather than worrying about the rates once they get there, the path to wealth would be a little more worn.

zimv20

Jul 28, 2004, 05:43 PM

I don't want them taxed, because I dream that someday I will be up there with them. ;) :D
by the time you get there, you won't mind paying taxes. lots of options to reduce your taxable income, too.

zimv20

Jul 28, 2004, 06:33 PM

Actually I don't pursue the path to wealth as much as I pursue the path to happiness.
excellent point. i feel that the path to happiness includes living in a happy society. that's why i support such things as good, affordable heath care and job and education opportunities for everyone.

Thomas Veil

Jul 28, 2004, 10:05 PM

Actually, it says, life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. What that means, is that we will give you the environment to suceed, you...by hard work and determination, have every opportunity to be whatever you want to be.
Fine. I said there's nothing wrong with people wanting social programs that help create that environment.

I have never heard any republican say "f you happen to fall on hard times and are starving to death, too bad sucker, I've got mine and you're on your own." I don't believe I know anyone as heartless as you are making me out to be....so that is an ignorant statement I think.
I said that nothing in the constitution requires us as a people to adopt that attitude. If you see yourself in that statement, then it's you who are categorizing yourself as such. Please don't put those words in my mouth.

Thank you for proving my point. Bush also did not have the "facts" from our gutted (by Clinton) intelligence community, so he voted for it also, before it became apparent that he had faulty intelligence. Look, when you make a decision you go with the best information you have at that particular moment in time. Bush did, and was man enough to admit it. Kerry has yet to explain his flipflops (on other issues besides Iraq)
Well, I knew it was gonna be Clinton's fault somewhere. ;) Look, I'm not even gonna get into the contention -- bolstered by many in the CIA and the Pentagon -- that Bush was steering the intelligence to justify a war. I'm just going to say that I don't prove your point at all. Kerry, on the basis of the latest information, now believes that the war was a mistake, and Bush stubbornly doesn't.

jelloshotsrule

Jul 28, 2004, 10:36 PM

ya know what i'm not even going to argue with you all.. i just can't believe that if you truly feel the way you do that your even capable of using the internet.

because for some reason - you tihnk george bush is worthy of being our president.. go see fehrenheit 9/11 if you wanna find out more about YOUR leader..

lemme guess.. are you guys white? are you guys protestant?

just curious if you plan to respond to my counter points?

i don't think you were addressing me, but...

i don't think george bush is worthy of being our president. i don't think kerry is either. i didn't need to see fahrenheit 9/11 to know this

i'm white, catholic.

and you?

romerom

Jul 29, 2004, 03:44 PM

There is the divisive class warfare again.

sounds like a yes to me..

romerom

Jul 29, 2004, 03:51 PM

i don't think george bush is worthy of being our president. i don't think kerry is either. i didn't need to see fahrenheit 9/11 to know this

i'm white, catholic.

and you?

but in the end the only thing that i care about is who you plan on voting for - bush or kerry. who do you feel is MORE worthy?? in my opinion, bush is OUR WORST PRESIDENT EVER! i also feel that CLINTON is one of our best. i think that kerry would take our country in more of a clintonesque direction.. and hopefully rebuild the bridges that bush has burned down with his HORRIBLE foreign policy.

i'm a beige (half caucasian half mexican) non-demoninational christian

blackfox

Jul 29, 2004, 06:22 PM

I personally think Carter was much worse than Bush.

Stelliform, I respectfully disagree...

It is interesting to compare the two Presidents however, as they both defined themselves in part by religious and moral values, and both inherited/ presided over a economic recession and dealt with a Islamic-based crisis during their Presidencies...

Before I discuss the above, it is interesting to look at the accomplishments of the Carter Presidency, which include:

1. The revision of the Social Security System to keep it solvent...
2. The courageous "Human Rights" Doctrine of Foreign Policy, which was generally well-received...even if it was not the most pragmatic policy, it cannot be faulted for the example it attempted to make...
3.The ratification of the Panama Canal Treaty - ensuring neutrality for the PC after 2000...
4. The Normalization of relations with China (began by Nixon)...
5. The Peace Treaty between Egypt and Isreal, acheived by great personal effort by Carter, which did much to calm relations in the ME for some time afterwards...
6. Attempt at Energy reform...did manage to deregulate Natural Gas...
Now, with comparisons to Bush and Carter...

Dealing with recession:
CARTER - initiated a comprehensive anti-inflation program, placing emphasis on voluntary cooperation between government, business and labor to restrict price and wage rises. Also, to try and strengthen the U.S. dollar, he set up a $30 billion coordinated market intervention facility in cooperation with three other countries. He also urged expansion of U.S. exports and congressional approval of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations.
Ultimately, the recession ran all the way till 1982, and Reagan inherited most of the fruits of his labor, not that Reagan should be blamed for this...

BUSH - I admit, I had trouble finding specific information for Bush, but he has primarily combated the recession borrowing heavily from Reagan...tax cuts, deficit spending...recession pretty much over half-way through his term...whether the tax cuts spurned the economy is anyone's guess...I would say they probably helped, but so would other measures...and they were to little for the vast majority of Americans, targeting only the richest...those being the leaders of Industry, reflecting "trickle-down" economic policy, right or wrong...

Religious/Moral Values:
CARTER - Elected in large part because of his religious values. Famously noted that he "would not tell a lie", which was looked at cynically, but is probably true. Implemented the "Human Rights" Foreign Policy, which cannot be faulted for it's morality. Used "Love" in almost all his speeches, and it was credible. Even if you don't agree with the effects of his Presidency, most can honestly say his heart is in the right place. Some have said that Carter's problem was that he had a "moral ideology" but not a "political ideology". His moral ideology would've been great if dealing with issues with a moral component, such as racial segregation of the Vietnam War...unfortunately, the problems he faced as President were not moral ones generally speaking, they were technical and logistical ones.

BUSH - Also appealed to many by identification with religious values. Has, however, used religion more as a wedge and a divider than a uniter, by implying that those who do not share his vision are morally suspect. Whether this reflects a change in the nature of Christian values in general or of his co-opting of them for political needs is up for grabs...Bush also has a moral ideology, but it seems to reflect a darker side of the Christian coin...more Old Testament than of Jesus's teachings. He also, most definitely has a political ideology, which makes him a much more effective politician, but has a tendency to undercut his morality and open himself up to hypocrisy...I have no doubt that Bush is personally a Religious man, but his policies do not reflect a moral ideology that one can respect...

FOREIGN POLICY:
CARTER - Stunned world by establishment of "Human Rights" Foreign Policy, which opened him up to criticism by some as meddling in world affairs. Most Leaders applauded it however. Perhaps not the most pragmatic policy shift ever, but could not be faulted on moral grounds...and the US probably looked pretty good to the rest of the world as a moral country...Brokered a peace between Isreal and Egypt, which calmed the ME considerably...

BUSH - Stunned the world by establishment of the "pre-emption" Foreign Policy, which opened him up to some criticism as overly meddling and imperial. Most World leaders initially reacted well to it, in relation to 9/11, but were worried about the potential of such an policy. Stood pretty well on the grounds of practicality, but as a moral policy, seems on shaky ground, as recent history has proven. US alienated most of the world and galvanized Islamic resistance to US intervention in the ME. Policy of Israeli placation, ME more tumultious now than ever....

I admit, these are my opinions, please feel free to point out my errors/omissions....

dsharits

Jul 30, 2004, 10:22 AM

A general rule of thumb: Think of who public enemy #1 (in this case Osama Bin Laden) would vote for, and vote for the opposing candidate.

Daniel

takao

Jul 30, 2004, 10:31 AM

A general rule of thumb: Think of who public enemy #1 (in this case Osama Bin Laden) would vote for, and vote for the opposing candidate.

Addition: And don't forget who declares the public enemies in the first place because history tell us that this rule of thumb can lead you in directions which aren't very nice.

yellow

Jul 30, 2004, 10:36 AM

A general rule of thumb: Think of who public enemy #1 (in this case Osama Bin Laden) would vote for, and vote for the opposing candidate.

What's the opposite of Libritarian?

zimv20

Jul 30, 2004, 10:38 AM

What's the opposite of Libritarian?
fascist

kuyu

Jul 30, 2004, 11:04 AM

Just found this thread, skipped pages 3 & 4. Sorry if I'm echoing others.

Here's why I will be voting for Bush (I didn't last time, BTW).
1) I believe that Bush's doctrine of preemption a necessary reality of the modern world. It's scary, could lead to many bad things, but I see more "long-run" stability in the world as a result of such a doctrine. (Kerry supports this as well, according to his speach last night)

2) I believe that as citizens, it's our responsibility to see that we are OK. The government is never great at spending our money. I support progressive taxes, but I don't support public social security. For instance, if SS were privatized the average American (earning $30,000/year) would be a multi-millionare upon retirement age (66).

3) I am AGAINST socialized medicine and buying "cheaper" drugs from Canada. Ask the 15,000 French who died in a heat wave how well socialized medicine works. And these "cheaper" Canadian drugs.... How's this. There are ZERO drug companies in Canada. The average medicine on the market is one of 10,000 that actually worked. These companies must recoup these investments. Canada fixes the price of said drugs, and these companies (many American) must sell the drugs at a loss to Canada. If we buy them from Canada, we are effectively screwing our own companies. What about their employees? Every drug bought "cheaply" from Canada effectively pushes the cure for Parkinson's, AIDS, Cancer, etc. back a day. Bad idea.

4) The new medicaid/care??? bill signed into law by Bush introduces gov. sponsored HSA accounts. This is the 2nd best thing we've ever had the government do for us. With this and Roth IRA's (read tax breaks for the poor) every American can make under $40,000 and be a millionare at retirement. If they don't act on it, their loss. It's there, legal, and requires "personal responsiblity for one's own future". It's perfect.

HSA's will lower the cost of medical insurance by pushing incentives to adopt higher deductable's. Our med system is clogged because everyone gets their insurance to pay for every sniffle and dental appointment. Let insurance pay for big surguries, pay for little stuff yourself by saving in this tax free account.

5) I don't like the current "wars", but they came to us. This war chose us, not the other way around. Jihad is a "just war". That is, muslim radicals (not regular muslims) have declared war on the USA. I'll say it again. They have DECLARED WAR ON US, NOT OUR GOVERNMENT. Any one remember WWI or WWII? A radical nation declared war on Europe and many just pretended it didn't happen. Next thing you know, we have an all out world war on our hands, because no one super-powerful nation squelched the thing at it's beginning.

If we had, I'm sure the enemy would have been pissed. But, think of the lives that could have been saved in the long run.

I have more, but these are good enough talking points for a while. Discuss amongst yourselves. ;)

zimv20

Jul 30, 2004, 11:18 AM

kuyu - thanks for some reasoned, err, reasons (even if i don't agree with them).

i'm intrigued by this idea that, merely by eliminating social security, everyone can become millionaires. i kind of agree and kind of disagree.

the reason is: today, just about anyone can become a millionaire, if they apply certain spending and investment strategies. whatever this set of strategies is, is probably the same set you would cite in the "no SS" scenario. the only difference between the two is the couple grand / year that working people wouldn't pay into the system.

i submit that such a relatively small amount of money should not be a hindrance to anyone to employs the above strategies to which i alluded.

yellow

Jul 30, 2004, 11:20 AM

5) I don't like the current "wars", but they came to us. This war chose us, not the other way around. Jihad is a "just war". That is, muslim radicals (not regular muslims) have declared war on the USA. I'll say it again. They have DECLARED WAR ON US, NOT OUR GOVERNMENT. Any one remember WWI or WWII? A radical nation declared war on Europe and many just pretended it didn't happen. Next thing you know, we have an all out world war on our hands, because no one super-powerful nation squelched the thing at it's beginning.

I'm sorry, as much of a tyrant as he is, Saddam Hussain did NOT bring the war to the U.S. In no way, shape, or form. And if you counter with "he probably paid money into supporting Al-Qaida", then why aren't we attacking any other countries (especially those in the Middle East)? Or is that Bush's next plan of action? Because $100,000,000,000 isn't enough to spend on a good old war?

kuyu

Jul 30, 2004, 12:58 PM

Let me try this again. Forum was messed up last time.

Zim, I am refering to personal SS. Rather than making it mandatory, I think the gov should phase in the option to save 6.5% of your pre-tax income on a deferal or roth basis. That way, those who don't know how to phone an investment firm or a bank can still count on their $1,100 month. However, those who do can count on their $11,000+ a month.

The Iraq mess is just that, a mess. Whether we should or shouldn't be there is, given the current real world situation, a moot point. We are there. So, the best thing we can do is to find the best conclusion for all parties involved.

I have 5 friends over there right now. They all seem to have a different perspective of the war. Some hate it, some agree with it. They all say the news is not reporting what's really going on: namely, reconstruction. All we hear, according to them, is the body count. Not good for morale.

Also, I liked Kerry's speach last night. He came off as strong and determined. I think the Democrats really have someone to rally behind now. I also don't fear a Kerry presidency. I believe that W and Kerry really want the best for us. Both are honorable men.

However, given the eutopia described as a Kerry presidency, why hasn't Kerry used his years as a Senator (a very powerful position) to accomplish one iota of this stuff???

Beats me. :confused:

zimv20

Jul 30, 2004, 01:23 PM

Zim, I am refering to personal SS. Rather than making it mandatory, I think the gov should phase in the option to save 6.5% of your pre-tax income on a deferal or roth basis. That way, those who don't know how to phone an investment firm or a bank can still count on their $1,100 month. However, those who do can count on their $11,000+ a month.
can you tell me more about those numbers?

at some point, we need to take into account:
1) investment risk
2) the tendency of people to spend more than they have

IJ Reilly

Jul 30, 2004, 01:25 PM

However, given the eutopia described as a Kerry presidency, why hasn't Kerry used his years as a Senator (a very powerful position) to accomplish one iota of this stuff???

I don't know about the "one iota" claim, but it is fair to ask whether Kerry was effective as a leader in the Senate. I get mixed messages. At the same time, I question the importance of this record. To bring this up also naturally raises the question of Bush's effectiveness as a political leader. He certainly didn't have that qualification to recommend him when he ran for president and he hasn't exactly demonstrated it over the last four years.

Sayhey

Jul 30, 2004, 01:31 PM

What's the opposite of Libritarian?

fascist

I've got to disagree. Civil Libertarians, yes, the Libertarian Party, no. A very large part of Fascist ideology was the glorification of corporate power, something they have in common with extreme Libertarians.

blackfox

Jul 30, 2004, 01:33 PM

Kuyu, thanks for your contributions, they are food for thought...

I find your argument for privatization of social security somewhat compelling, as I do some aspects of your take on the Health Care Reform made recently...

Still, I bring this point to you...After watching Kerry speak last night or analyzing his projected policies for his Presidency, I find little that one could really find unreasonable. Expanding Health-care coverage is not a bad thing, and could possibly co-exist with the privatization scheme you mention, but even if not, I beleive that the poor also deserve the right to health...while I admitedly lean towards some degree of Nationalized Health Care, it really doesn't matter as long as it is affordable to all.

Someone (possibly you) mentioned about Canada buying importing drugs for cheap, making US (and European?) Drug Companies take a loss. Considering the profit-margins on some of their drugs, I find this hard to believe, but perhaps you are talking about the recoup from R&D expenses and the failure of certain drugs brought to market. Still, most companies have to deal with this, and it is not like the drug companies will ever run out of a customer base (unfortunately). Canada is able to negotiate prices on drugs because they are a huge entity, I do not see why it would be bad from a consumer standpoint, for the government to negotiate prices from a position of power deriving from it's size and purchasing power. To a lesser degree, health-care coverage is already negotiated by grouping together smaller groups of people to the same end, much like collective-bargaining given to Unions back in the day.

Also, Kerry's educational platform, although admittedly expensive, is something we certainly should spend money on. Anything that improves the quality of schools and allows more people to go to college is a good thing. I find this one of the strongest points of Kerry's campaign. The continued and expanded funding of after-school programs (which Bush has cut) also seems like a logical and needed choice.

I was willing to give Bush a chance on Education, indeed on many things, and perhaps though NCLB might be OK, but Bush did not fund the program or give the states enough money to adequately implement it. A huge failure in my mind.

Really, the reason I want Kerry (or a Liberal) in the WH can be brought back to Clinton (especially his second-term)...

Although he was a Liberal, he was a rather centrist one, and with a Republican Congress, he was able to get much accomplished that both sides were happy with. His Presidency was one of the most Conservative in recent memory and one of the most successful. He reduced the size of Government, lowered taxes, eliminated an entitlement program, balanced the budget among other things. True, he was not a social conservative (although he did sign the Defense of Marriage Act), but Economically he proved to be.

Although undoubtably, Clinton wanted to push some more Liberal proposals through Congress in many of these areas, he was forced to compromise with Congress, which drove most policy to the Center, which I believe is a compromise most of us can live with. I believe Kerry will do the same. This may not please all of the LIberals or the Conservatives, but it will likely please enough, and somewhat unite America.

Bush has had a Republican-controlled Congress and still accomplished very little, and the need to compromise has largely been lost to a GOP that holds all the power in two branches of government. Policy is being pushed a little too far to an extreme (the right in this case), and is dividing America and disenfranchising many centrist and left-leaning voters, who do make up half of America. I cannot abide this...

Just some comments...FWIW

skunk

Jul 30, 2004, 01:45 PM

I've got to disagree. Civil Libertarians, yes, the Libertarian Party, no. A very large part of Fascist ideology was the glorification of corporate power, something they have in common with extreme Libertarians.
Indeed. Any ideology based on power, personal or corporate, is close to fascism.

I'd say the opposite of Libertarianism is more like Social Democracy.

Bobcat37

Jul 30, 2004, 02:06 PM

Also, Kerry's educational platform, although admittedly expensive, is something we certainly should spend money on. Anything that improves the quality of schools and allows more people to go to college is a good thing. I find this one of the strongest points of Kerry's campaign. The continued and expanded funding of after-school programs (which Bush has cut) also seems like a logical and needed choice.

I was willing to give Bush a chance on Education, indeed on many things, and perhaps though NCLB might be OK, but Bush did not fund the program or give the states enough money to adequately implement it. A huge failure in my mind.

Education is important, but it seems to me that often the Democratic answer is "throw money at it, that's got to help". This is what I do not agree with. We need to spend money on education for sure, but if you ever look into the waste of that money by the countless bureaucracies, it could be enough to make you sick. I've seen several programs, local and national, about how schools waste the money we give them, and it is outrageous. Maybe, just maybe, we are spending enough on education, and need to do some serious work on cutting out the bureaucracies and their waste. Then, we could use that money to actually pay our teachers more, improve our schools, and educate our kids better. I'm referring more to pre-college education here btw. I haven't really looked into NCLB much, so I can't say whether I think it was good or not... however I do know that Bush has pumped more money into K-12 education than any other administration ever has, so obviously more than that has to be done.

One interesting fact about Kerry (and FYI, it is from Bush's site)

In 2003, Kerry missed 292 votes (64%), including at least 24 important education votes. Ironically, three of these missed votes were on amendments that would have funded proposals he claims to support as part of his presidential campaign.

Although he was a Liberal, he was a rather centrist one, and with a Republican Congress, he was able to get much accomplished that both sides were happy with. His Presidency was one of the most Conservative in recent memory and one of the most successful. He reduced the size of Government, lowered taxes, eliminated an entitlement program, balanced the budget among other things. True, he was not a social conservative (although he did sign the Defense of Marriage Act), but Economically he proved to be.

Although undoubtably, Clinton wanted to push some more Liberal proposals through Congress in many of these areas, he was forced to compromise with Congress, which drove most policy to the Center, which I believe is a compromise most of us can live with. I believe Kerry will do the same. This may not please all of the LIberals or the Conservatives, but it will likely please enough, and somewhat unite America.

Bush has had a Republican-controlled Congress and still accomplished very little, and the need to compromise has largely been lost to a GOP that holds all the power in two branches of government. Policy is being pushed a little too far to an extreme (the right in this case), and is dividing America and disenfranchising many centrist and left-leaning voters, who do make up half of America. I cannot abide this...

Just some comments...FWIW

A couple things... first off, Kerry is much more liberal than Clinton, so that could make a difference. Second, I completely agree that Republicans have done to great a job considering they controlled both the WH and Congress. Trust me, even I'm disappointed in some areas and think they could have accomplished a lot more. However, along those lines, in my opinion if a Republican controlled WH and Congress didn't do great, personally I would be worried about a Democrat controlled WH and Congress, so in short, if Kerry does win, I just hope Republicans keep the Congress like we did with Clinton.

FYI- I've only read page 4 of this topic, so sorry if some of this has been said before.

Sayhey

Jul 30, 2004, 03:15 PM

Bobcat,

I know it is one of the GOP talking points, but what is with the attacks on Kerry's missing votes while on the campaign trail? It is one of the silly dreams of the Romney crowd in Massachusetts that Kerry will be forced to resign early, but that is all it is - a partisan dream. All nominees, as Governors or legislators miss time away from their current jobs in order to get elected to the job they are seeking. If the GOP wants to make an issue of this, I'm afraid it just won't play.

Bobcat37

Jul 30, 2004, 03:26 PM

zimv20

Jul 30, 2004, 03:30 PM

john kerry announced his candidacy (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200309/POL20030902b.html) on sep 2 2003

Bobcat37

Jul 30, 2004, 03:33 PM

Thanks zim, I guess I wasn't too far off. Point is, 64% of the votes in 2003 did not happen after Sept 2nd :p

Also, doesn't the congress take quite a few breaks for all the holidays in that part of the year? Meaning even less votes post-September.

zimv20

Jul 30, 2004, 03:33 PM

i wonder how often this kind of stuff happened...

6/23/04 wash post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61940-2004Jun22.html)

Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry abruptly interrupted his campaign yesterday to return to Washington for a Senate vote that, as it happened, never happened.

Kerry decided late Monday to cancel campaign stops in New Mexico scheduled for yesterday and flew back to the capital, arriving at a deserted Reagan National Airport at 2 a.m. The senator from Massachusetts wanted to register his vote in support of an amendment that would have guaranteed federal funding for veterans' health care.

In the end, however, Kerry never got to vote. Republicans declined to bring the Democratic-sponsored amendment to the floor while the candidate was here. So Kerry hung around for a while but then headed back to the campaign trail.

Bobcat37

Jul 30, 2004, 03:35 PM

Zim- that would definitely suck. As I said, I understand that while he is on the campaign trail, it would definitely be hard to make it to many votes, especially if some get outright cancelled like the one you cited. The only thing I am criticizing Kerry on is the 2003 record, which seems to me, he should have made more than 36% of the votes, unless like I said I am missing something here...

Sayhey

Jul 30, 2004, 03:40 PM

The statistic I listed was from 2003... I didn't realize he was on the campaign trail 1.5 years ago already. :confused:

I realize you are going to miss votes in the Senate when you are running for Pres, but I don't see how that can be an excuse for missing 64% of the votes last year.

Maybe someone wants to clarify for me when the whole campaign thing officially started? It doesn't seem like it was that long ago, but maybe time just flies by too fast. I'll gladly admit if I am wrong, but I didn't think John Kerry started campaigning until late-2003 at the soonest. Maybe I'm wrong, these things seem to start earlier and earlier with each election.

If you are to make a case for absenteeism you will have to do better than that. Admittedly, this is a subject the Bush administration is very familiar with, but you'd have to show a pattern prior to the beginning of his campaign to have much of a chance to make this charge stick.

If you are going to try to do so, I would add to zim's post, that many candidates travel to New Hampshire, Iowa, South Carolina, etc. before the actual announcement of their campaigns. I think it would take a correlation of absenteeism to vacations, for instance, to really make your case. I'd suggest looking at the time Bush has spent in Crawford and Camp David as a good example and starting point. Good luck in your research.

zimv20

Jul 30, 2004, 03:40 PM

The only thing I am criticizing Kerry on is the 2003 record, which seems to me, he should have made more than 36% of the votes, unless like I said I am missing something here...
the missing piece may be when the senate was in session; votes aren't distributed evenly across the year.

i just finished reading the WP article i linked to above, seems kerry did miss an awful lot of votes all on his own. i, for one, would like to know:
1) why
2) what the avg. "present" percentage is for senators
3) the membership of the top 20 list for no-shows

blackfox

Jul 30, 2004, 03:56 PM

For a little clarification on the Kerry Senate Vote(s) of 2003

Kerry was out for Prostate Surgery beginning on session in Febuary.

Senate in session approximately 194 days in 2003 (from mid-feb to Oct.)

Subtract about 50 days for Senate recesses for holidays and such...plus another 15 or so for long weekends attached to those holidays.

I do not know if the Senate convenes on Weekends usually, if not, subtract another 50 or so days.

Leaving about 90.

It is also worth looking into the votes on many of those bills, as if they were bound to pass or fail, a vote would probably not be needed, unless it was a "protest" vote by the minority...

Not that this clears anything up, or excuses Kerry...but FWIW

Sayhey

Jul 30, 2004, 04:03 PM

edit: double post. I tried to get through but the servers were overloaded. I guess one attempt did get through and I didn't notice it.

Bobcat37

Jul 30, 2004, 04:05 PM

1) why
2) what the avg. "present" percentage is for senators
3) the membership of the top 20 list for no-shows

I agree, those would be some interesting statistics to know.

And Sayhey... deja vu man... deja vu :p

Edit: Aww, you edited the deja vu, now no one will get the joke!

kuyu

Jul 30, 2004, 04:30 PM

can you tell me more about those numbers?

at some point, we need to take into account:
1) investment risk
2) the tendency of people to spend more than they have

Sure Zim. Take the average american yearly income, $30,000. 6.5% of that is $1950/year. The average return on the stock market over it's life is ~12%. Figure in the average inflation of 2.5%, and we're talking about a 9.5% real return.

If the average worker starts earning this $30,000 at 25, and is eligible to recieve the money at 65, that's 40 years of interest. (I understand these are only averages and that most won't work to 65. But, most work before 25. It's merely an average).

So, $1,950 invested every year for 40 years at a 9.5% real return is......... $753,713.98!!! Thus, the avg American would have 3/4 of a million from personal SS alone. Plus HSA's, IRA's, 401k's, pensions, etc.

In safe bonds, one could yeild 5% easy. That's $3,140 pre-tax or $2,072.71 after tax of monthly income. Double the benefit of our current system. (Think of the jobs created too!!!) At the same 9.5%, that's $3,919/month!!!!

However, this is a major underestimation, as we all will make more money in the future (inflationary effects on wages + increases in standard of living).

About market risk: The point of diversification is to minimize risk (beta). Mathematically, a diversified strategy will have a lower beta than the least risky investment therein. Neat, huh.

People spend more than they have: Their problem, not the governments.

blackfox

Jul 30, 2004, 04:36 PM

Very interesting Kuyu, although not enough to make me vote for Bush. Might vote for another Republican based on this issue, however...like, say, McCain...

zimv20

Jul 30, 2004, 04:43 PM

Sure Zim. Take the average american yearly income, $30,000. 6.5% of that is $1950/year. The average return on the stock market over it's life is ~12%. Figure in the average inflation of 2.5%, and we're talking about a 9.5% real return.
got it. thanks.

your $1950 number is close to the $2k IRA (or is it higher now?). i don't have a handle on how many people understand tax-deferred investing, or betas, or being long on a position, or the compounding effect of reinvestment. in my casual observation, there is a huge educational hurdle to overcome in getting people to invest regularly, intelligently and with patience.

these personal accounts rely on that kind of investing. because i try to never underestimate the ignorance of the masses, i must assume that people will largely behave as they've been behaving. that is, they'll choose to spend the money instead of investing as we've described. good intentions and investment plans will fail for various reasons, whether it's to put a down payment on a house, or to get a new car, or to go on a coke bender. or even to dump everything into that hot new stock that i just know can't fail.

so the question that remains is, "is it the gov'ts job to save money for people?" And following, "is it in society's interest to make sure people are cared for once they retire?"

cynically, i will say yes to the first. my yes to the second is based on what i think happens to crime rates when people are disenfranchised, and how my city life is negatively affected by a large number of people living in poverty.

People spend more than they have: Their problem, not the governments.
a philosophical question: are society's problems the government's problems, as well?

pseudobrit

Jul 30, 2004, 05:17 PM

It is also worth looking into the votes on many of those bills, as if they were bound to pass or fail, a vote would probably not be needed, unless it was a "protest" vote by the minority...

With a GOP controlled Senate... you figure it out. ;)

FWIW, the Congressional Record is available for your perusal online. link (http://thomas.loc.gov/r108/r108.html)

Bobcat37

Jul 30, 2004, 05:34 PM

FWIW

I'm about to go crazy, you guys use WAY more acronyms than a normal board.

What is FWIW? Also I've seen others I don't recognize, a little help would be appreciated.

skunk

Jul 30, 2004, 05:39 PM

I'm about to go crazy, you guys use WAY more acronyms than a normal board.

What is FWIW? Also I've seen others I don't recognize, a little help would be appreciated.
For what it's worth.

MacRumors Glossary Service. :D

pseudobrit

Jul 30, 2004, 09:58 PM

I'm about to go crazy, you guys use WAY more acronyms than a normal board.

What is FWIW? Also I've seen others I don't recognize, a little help would be appreciated.

acronymfinder.com

kuyu

Jul 31, 2004, 09:06 AM

Zim, as always, great points.

The IRA limit is $3,000/year now.

I understand what you mean about the masses and their ability to invest their own money. That's why I propose a system that is slow to phase in fully. Also, after it was totally in place, I would still make personal SS an elective option. That is, those happy with the current system could keep it. All you need is a couple of regulations regarding the PSS money, and a new check on the W-4 (or whatever that doc is at work), and a bank account with a financial firm.

That's common ground between Bush and Kerry (which is where most of us live). The rich aren't treated to an old fashioned "Robin Hooding", and the poor aren't treated as "less than". It's a win-win situation. Plus, it offers American's some choices regarding their own future.

Back on track: Blackfox, I think Bush-McCain or Bush-Powell would be a great ticket. MAke Cheney head of CIA (he's a proven org. leader), make Powell Defense sec, make McCain VP, make Condi sec of state, make rummy national security advisor, and get rid of ashcroft all together. He's too christian to identify with us citizens.

kuyu

Jul 31, 2004, 09:19 AM

a philosophical question: are society's problems the government's problems, as well?

Aye, there's the rub. I think you just found the most basic difference between conservatism and liberalism (mainstream versions). I think the liberal answer to your query is Yes, as a government 'of the people', any of the people's problems are inherently the burden of the ruling body. Thus, the people and the government form a sort of symbiotic relationship in which the people have problems and the government solves them.

The conservative answer is Yes, but with a caveat. Rather than merely solving the public's problems, the government embodies a more important responsibility: namely, to foster an environment where the people are free to solve their own problems within the bounds of personal liberty.

That being said, real issues are never a simple dichotemy of "give a man a fish..." However, I think different issues call for a mix of these two core strategems. At the local level (city government) the liberal fix is more in order. However, at the national level the long-run scope of the conservative strategy is more appropriate, IMO. That's why I vote a split ticket. The parties both want the best for us, but their strategies are effective on different levels.

zimv20

Jul 31, 2004, 11:05 AM

Zim, as always, great points.
:-)

I would still make personal SS an elective option. That is, those happy with the current system could keep it.
my fear is that the wrong people would elect to invest on their own. i probably would, but i'm a patient investor (actually, i am now, after i lost a crapload of money by picking stocks myself).

plus, to this point, we've discussed only one aspect of SS. there are other aspects, such as the safety net it provides to people who face unfortunate situations. it is the contributions of the collective that make that possible. so while some will receive far more than they contribute, and others will receive far less, it is the insurance aspect of SS that keeps us involved.

zimv20

Jul 31, 2004, 11:22 AM

The conservative answer is Yes, but with a caveat. Rather than merely solving the public's problems, the government embodies a more important responsibility: namely, to foster an environment where the people are free to solve their own problems within the bounds of personal liberty.
i fully agree that people should solve their own goddamned problems. i personally subscribe to that, and this world would be a lot better place if everyone did the same.

however -- that's not the reality. here's the twist: i'm not liberal because i want my gov't to solve my problems, i'm liberal because i want to live in a society where the irresponsible have their problems solved for them (to a degree). because i don't feel like spending all my time solving their problems for them, i want the gov't to do it. and i'll pay for it.

society's problems are the government's problems because the gov't exists to serve society. just as i don't go out and pave a 14' section of road, i don't want to spend my time giving each impoverished person i see 3 cents.

society is better when its problems are addressed, and we each live in that society. gov't is the appointed solver of those problems because:
1) it's already got its collection system up and running
2) it's the body that (hopefully) can make the most disinterested decisions
3) it represents the interests of all people (again, hopefully)
4) it's got a bureacracy designed to ensure decisions are thought out
5) if it messes up, we the people have recourse (elections)
6) centralizing services means increased efficiency (hopefully)

finally, i'd be happy w/ relieving the gov't of this duty if society itself somehow came together to solve problems. but we don't, too many of us are greedy and/or lazy (like me, i'd rather pay someone to do it than do it myself).

blackfox

Jul 31, 2004, 02:19 PM

...snip...
Back on track: Blackfox, I think Bush-McCain or Bush-Powell would be a great ticket. MAke Cheney head of CIA (he's a proven org. leader), make Powell Defense sec, make McCain VP, make Condi sec of state, make rummy national security advisor, and get rid of ashcroft all together. He's too christian to identify with us citizens.

Kuyu, first of all, thankyou for your reasoned and thoughtful responses regarding SS, you have done much to raise the issue in my mind and put me on the fence w/ this issue, and that is what I come to these forums for. If some of the issues Zim pointed out are properly addressed, I might not mind a hybrid system...at any rate, I appreciate it.

As for the quote above, I cannot agree. It is not that I cannot stomach a conservative ticket, I can, under the correct circumstances. It is a question of trust and character. Quite frankly, I do not believe in the character or trust in Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. Much of what I have detested over the past few years in this Administration leads to these men in accountability. The flawed intelligence for the War in Iraq, the Prisoner-Abuse/Geneva Convention issues, Inter-departamental Intelligence jockeying (between DOD and CIA), bidding processes for Iraqi reconstruction, plus the lack of transparency in methodology and seeming unwillingness to take ownership of the conclusions of their actions and ideologies. They are also all part of the NeoCon grouping, a relatively small, but influential lot, who if I was a Conservative, would dismay me with their highjacking of my Party. As a Democrat, this also dismays me...I do not automatically have a knee-jerk response to Republicans or their policies, but franky NeoCon ideology frightens me.

So, I would suggest:
PRES. - McCain
VP - Guiliani/possibly Gov. Riley (AL)
Secr. State - Fmr. Ambassador David Newton
Secr. Defense - Powell
AG - ?
NSA - Anthony Cordesman (currently @CSIS, formerly an advisor to McCain on Senate Armed Services Commitee)

Dale Sorel

Jul 31, 2004, 03:50 PM

It is a question of trust and character.

You mean like the pillar of character that President Clinton was/is :rolleyes:

LOL :p

blackfox

Jul 31, 2004, 04:20 PM

You mean like the pillar of character that President Clinton was/is :rolleyes:

LOL :p
What does Clinton's trust and character have to do with Bush's. He may have got into the WH on that platform, but it was up to him to live up to those standards. In my opinion he has failed. That Clinton also failed, has no bearing at all...

kuyu

Jul 31, 2004, 07:00 PM

blackfox

Jul 31, 2004, 07:21 PM

OK, I've figured it out. Blackfox, Zim, and myself should run for office. I'm thinking we roll dice to see who gets to be prez, and the other two can be "national this-or-that advisor".

Let me thank both of you for actually having a discussion about the issues, rather than playing flame the conservative. It's quite refreshing.

At the end of the day, I think that most American's do find themselves somewhere between the left and the right, and usually call 'em as they see 'em.

Blackfox, the idea about McCain-Guliani is perfect. It's would be a total landslide.

I think what Zim and Blackfox are saying (please correct me if wrong) is that the problem isn't with conservatives or even republican's, but rather the problem is with Bush & Co.? If this is your point, it's a valid one. I'm not a huge Bush fan myself. I voted for Gore. But, I think the issues that matter to me fall in Bush's column while the issues that matter to you two fall in Kerry's column.

Can't wait until the election to see who wins. :)

I'll pass on the Presidential post. Although I am devastatingly handsome and telegenic, the fact that I have an English accent, while perhaps ingratiating, is not perfect for obvious reasons. So I will let whomever would be President in our Administration, assign me to the appropriate position on my strengths and abilities. I also want Sayhey, Pseudobrit and IJ in there somewhere...

As for your take on what Zim and I are saying, at least to speak for myself, that is the issue exactly. Although I will often disagree with Conservative thought, especially on social issues, I am a reasonable man and understand the need to compromise to benefit as many Americans as possible, even if I do not agree with them all.

It is true (again for me), that many issues important to me fall into the Kerry column, but more than that it is just that I am afraid of Bush and his detrimental effects on our very essence as Americans, as a Nation and as a member of the World Community. It has to do with NeoCons, not conservatives in general. Many of the issues that are important to me, are of course, important to everyone and not the providence of one Party or one ideology. As I mentioned before, If there was a different Republican running for President (like McCain), I may find myself in his camp on many issues, like education and health-care, as all I want is a fair solution that works...the manner in which this comes about is secondary.

I have my ideas about what is preferable, but I am willing to give certain other ideas a chance also. When it comes to me voting for President, it is about character and competence and trust, not always the issues. I would ask you Kuyu, whether you can in good faith vote for Bush come Nov. on these criteria. I surely cannot, regardless of his platform...after all, he had a platform in 2000, and that sure as hell did not pan out. Kerry may not either, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and he is the best option we've got.

Bobcat37

Jul 31, 2004, 07:28 PM

I also want Sayhey, Pseudobrit and IJ in there somewhere...

That's it, I'm moving to Cuba :D

(JUST KIDDING GUYS)

Btw, to add to kuyu's compliments, you and zim have generally been the most fun for me to debate against in other theads so far. I'm still eagerly awaiting your response re stem cells.

zimv20

Jul 31, 2004, 08:08 PM

OK, I've figured it out. Blackfox, Zim, and myself should run for office. I'm thinking we roll dice to see who gets to be prez, and the other two can be "national this-or-that advisor".
when i play in bands, i hide behind the keyboard. when i work on software systems, i work on the middle tier and avoid GUIs. i prefer playing supporting actor to lead, enjoy mixing songs in the dark, have run lights and sound for stage, and have written material for other people to perform. i am drawn to tasks which are not immediately recognized in importance or prominance, but have a noticable effect if missing or done poorly.

so you'll understand that i don't want to be president, but i thank you for suggesting the possibility.

I think what Zim and Blackfox are saying (please correct me if wrong) is that the problem isn't with conservatives or even republican's, but rather the problem is with Bush & Co.?
that's a fair statement in my case. there are others who i don't like (helms, santorum, frist), but that's because i think they're elitist moralists, not because they're republicans. i also think daschle is an ineffective, grovelling minority leader.

there are ways in which i'm conservative, principally fiscally. the ones i tend not to like are the social conservatives who push their viewpoints on others, like santorum's anti-gay stance.