Guest SkinsHokie Fan Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 And Dukus it has gotten worse and worse. The generation of the depression did its damndest to pull itself out. A World War, buckling up the boots and some good old fashion hard work led to this country being great. The gov't actually held back any progress we could have made with stupid rules such as not allowing companies to fire people. Mobilizing for the war pulled us out of the depression, not the new deal. Today however we ask how much we can get from the government and send our tax dollars into a bigger and bigger black hole. I can do a better job of helping a poor person then the people in DC can. A charity will do more good then any government program. I have no problem giving back to people I have a problem giving Washington money to waste. Whatever the government can do I and other private citizens and organizations can do better. (Except of course dealing with military issues) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Kerry is the second coming of Jimmy Carter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan Its pretty simple TLusby about "my generation" Nobody has ever taught us personal responsibility. Ever. We always have had someone else to fault or blame or point fingers at. The kids that I have gone to school with have never been taught to look in the mirror. So we blame the gov't. Or rely on it. And that is going to be the downfall of this nation That is all the parents fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by Duckus "I have been trying for a long time to get people to say a reason to vote FOR Kerry. The only reason I have heard: He is a Vietnam War hero." I would say that the reasons I am voting for Kerry are based more on domestic issues than national ones. I believe both candidates understand what world we live in now post Sept. 11 and I cannot see either not doing their very best to insure our national security. Saying that the domestic issues that I support Kerry on are as follows: A woman’s right to chose Heath care for everyone Rolling back the tax cuts for the top 1% Cutting the outrages defect Improving the environment Supporting public education (not doing vouchers) There are others but those are th major ones I would say.... I'm not going to comment on whether those are good things, but only on whether Kerry will provide those things. Woman's right to choose is definitely a Kerry issue. He does support that. Health care for everyone - His plans do not provide that or even promise that. Rolling back the tax cuts for the top 1% - He plans to roll back taxes on those making $200,000 and over. That is not the top 1%. The top 1% is around $319,000. Cutting the outrageous deficit - The spending cuts he proposes total $92 billion over a period of 10 years (averaging $9.2 billion per year.) The rest of his deficit plan to cut the deficit is the rolling back of the tax cuts. Unfortunately he does not plan to devote all or even most of the tax rollback revenues to the deficit. He never mentions the exact numbers, but don't be surprised if he spends all of the revenues on his programs and not the deficit. Improving the environment - He plans to increase funding to some existing government programs and tighten some existing government regulations. Nothing major. Not doing vouchers for education - No he won't do vouchers. So really the only things on your list that Kerry will actually do are: A woman’s right to choose Not doing vouchers Politically he will help with "Improving the environment", but in his personal life he will continue to use his yacht, private jet and SUVs. P.S. Responding with the Quote button (or using the QUOTE tag), helps make your post easier to read than using quotation marks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma Kerry is the second coming of Jimmy Carter I wouldn't give him that much credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma Kerry is the second coming of Jimmy Carter Kerry is the second coming of Al Gore, except Al is a lot more lively and fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by Duckus "I have been trying for a long time to get people to say a reason to vote FOR Kerry. The only reason I have heard: He is a Vietnam War hero." I would say that the reasons I am voting for Kerry are based more on domestic issues than national ones. I believe both candidates understand what world we live in now post Sept. 11 and I cannot see either not doing their very best to insure our national security. Saying that the domestic issues that I support Kerry on are as follows: A woman’s right to chose Heath care for everyone Rolling back the tax cuts for the top 1% Cutting the outrages defect Improving the environment Supporting public education (not doing vouchers) There are others but those are th major ones I would say.... It's amazing to me that the left will fight tooth and nail for the so called woman's right to choose, or the right to murder an innocent child, yet they will take to the street's with the same vigor, to deny other's the right to choose what school your children can attend, and force your tax dollar's to funnel into a inferior education for your children. I want to know how Kerry plan's to cut the deficit, while we are at war? And how does he plan to continue to fund the war on terror? I also would like to know how he plan's to lure buisness to the states, as well as keep the existing one's, by raising their taxes? And while I am at it, what is he going to do for the enviorment? and how much is that going to cost the tax payer's? Curios mind's want to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Duckus Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by SkinsHokie Fan And Dukus it has gotten worse and worse. The generation of the depression did its damndest to pull itself out. A World War, buckling up the boots and some good old fashion hard work led to this country being great. The gov't actually held back any progress we could have made with stupid rules such as not allowing companies to fire people. Mobilizing for the war pulled us out of the depression, not the new deal. Today however we ask how much we can get from the government and send our tax dollars into a bigger and bigger black hole. I can do a better job of helping a poor person then the people in DC can. A charity will do more good then any government program. I have no problem giving back to people I have a problem giving Washington money to waste. Whatever the government can do I and other private citizens and organizations can do better. (Except of course dealing with military issues) 1) Please don't talk down to me 2) I agree with you that "the generation of the depression did its damndest to pull itself out." Nobody can argue that at all. However, to sit there and pretend like none of the government’s actions at the time helped is crazy talk. There were plans after plans on how to help the country, some worked and some did not (and I agree a few actually ended up hurting maybe). However, to pretend like the government had no role in the recovery of the economy goes against any common knowledge. Take for example the Emergency Banking Act/Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation which helped restore peoples faith in the banking system. Or what about the Civil Works Administration, Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 or the Social Security Act. Of course some of the programs went belly up. But some have a proven record of having helped the economy recover. 3) I agree that you might be a great citizen who can do a lot more than the government. But not everyone is like you. Not all citizens are willing to step up and take the time to make a difference. I agree that view can be seen as cynical, however believing that people will help others all the time is naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Duckus Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by offiss It's amazing to me that the left will fight tooth and nail for the so called woman's right to choose, or the right to murder an innocent child, yet they will take to the street's with the same vigor, to deny other's the right to choose what school your children can attend, and force your tax dollar's to funnel into a inferior education for your children. Anybody has the right to choose where to send their children to school. So I don't know really what you mean by that. I just don't personally believe that to solve the problem we need to send kids out of the system. I don't think you are going to convience me otherwise, and I dought I can convience you of my belief/ Originally posted by offiss I want to know how Kerry plan's to cut the deficit, while we are at war? And how does he plan to continue to fund the war on terror? I also would like to know how he plan's to lure buisness to the states, as well as keep the existing one's, by raising their taxes? And while I am at it, what is he going to do for the enviorment? and how much is that going to cost the tax payer's? Curios mind's want to know. I was always taught that when you want answer go straight to the source. Here are the links to most of Kerry's plans when it comes to the economy, straight from his website. Will they work? I HAVE NO IDEA! However, Bush had a shot at it and it did not work (IN MY VIEW) so I am 100% comfortable with giving Kerry a shot at it. http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/budget.pdf http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/middle_class.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/workers.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/jobs.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/small_biz.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/trade.html http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/workfam.html http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/women_wage.pdf http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/trade_enforcement.pdf http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/tax_reform.pdf http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/manufacturing.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 In my opinion, this is a very bad time to raise taxes. Kerry could be lucky and nothing bad could happen, or he could be unlucky and drive us into a depression like Hoover. Most likely it will be something in between. If you want to get rid of the deficit in a long term meaningful way, there is only one solution. That is to cut spending. Otherwise, you can get a temporary surplus if the economy grows faster than spending (like we saw in the late 90s/early 00s), but it will go away quickly if the economy goes sour again. P.S. Good work, Duckus, on looking up the actual programs. That is what you need to do with these guys. I don't trust any of the garbage they spew in their speeches/commercials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 agree with you that "the generation of the depression did its damndest to pull itself out." Nobody can argue that at all. However, to sit there and pretend like none of the government’s actions at the time helped is crazy talk. There were plans after plans on how to help the country, some worked and some did not (and I agree a few actually ended up hurting maybe). However, to pretend like the government had no role in the recovery of the economy goes against any common knowledge. Actually it's really not that mainstream anymore. Defenders of the New Deal tend to be historians( and a great deal are now increasing willing to acknowledge the New Deal was a failure) not economists( for god sakes the liberal icon Keynes spoke out against many aspects of the New Deal). In fact, the New Deal essentially prolonged the great depression, creating a depression within a depression. The great depression really didn't end until after WW2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPare Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 OK, so, 3 pages later and I still haven't really heard anything that makes me think that he's a halfway decent candidate. Yes, a bunch of you support him. When you list out the things that you like about him, you mention things that would be the same about ANY nominee of the Democratic party. - Rolling back tax cuts - Socialized medicine - Pro abortion - Support for the environment. That's all boilerplate stuff. Can any of you tell me that Howard Dean, or John Edwards, or Hillary Clinton would be any different on those things? One of you mentioned that he was dead in the water and came back. My question to you is whether you think that the comeback has anything to do with Kerry's positives, or the adults at the Democrat's table realizing the meltdown that would occur if Dean was the nominee. Frankly, the D establishment picked the guy that they were most comfortable with and pushed the entire weight of the party machinery in his favour. Oh, and Destino, you may notice that I haven't mentioned in any of these things where I would stand on the issues (right or left). If you can only defend Kerry by calling my concerns partisan then I think that somebody very close to you needs to look in the mirror. If you genuinely like Kerry, as opposed to any of the names I listed above, please tell me why. I just don't see it. As far as all of the options being bad, and that there's never candidates that come forward that are worth voting FOR- I'll give you 2 counter examples counting for 4 of the last 6 elections- - Clinton (no matter what you think about personally, he was an engaging, thoughtful candidate) - Reagan (again, he had a strong vision of a reawakening of America that people could vote for) I don't have a horse in this race, being Canadian. I just think that it's terrible for democracy when one party presents such a horrible candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I guess its for a different thread.. Seems like the 7$ minimum wage and the bringing jobs back to the US are in conflict??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear I guess its for a different thread.. Seems like the 7$ minimum wage and the bringing jobs back to the US are in conflict??? Jobs aren't coming back, we are turning into a global economy, with the internet you can work anywhere, Kerry knows this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by offiss to deny other's the right to choose what school your children can attend, and force your tax dollar's to funnel into a inferior education for your children. I've yet to see any proof at all that privatizing the entire school system will do anything but increase the gap between rich and poor. Private schools have the advantage now because they only get kids who have active parents and can pick and choose whom they acept. This plan also depresses teachers salaries, who in my opinion make too little as is. Originally posted by offiss I want to know how Kerry plan's to cut the deficit, while we are at war? And how does he plan to continue to fund the war on terror? Well for one, you don't cut taxes while you are at war. That's a long established reality here in the US. In fact our government usually asked us for help during times of war. When your country is in need you don't ask for your money back and then wrap yourself in a flag. Originally posted by offiss I also would like to know how he plan's to lure buisness to the states, as well as keep the existing one's, by raising their taxes? Closing loopholes that encourage them to be an "american" business but do all their work somewhere else. Originally posted by offiss And while I am at it, what is he going to do for the enviorment? and how much is that going to cost the tax payer's? Curios mind's want to know. The people that should be paying for the damage done to the envirment are those that are polluting it. A concept lost on the GOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear I guess its for a different thread.. Seems like the 7$ minimum wage and the bringing jobs back to the US are in conflict??? 7 is a dream, it will be reduced in congress. Now answer this, when was the last time the min wage was adjusted for inflation? oops....you forgot that it's been going down and this after it's all said and done isn't really a raise at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan51 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by TLusby Duckus: I respect your opinion but I just wonder where our younger generation gets this attitude that the government is the provider for all. I guess the public schools just do not teach what responsibilities the government should obligate itself to. I can assure you that it doesn't provide healthcare, social security, or any other liberal social platforms. We need to get this country back to its premise in "the constitution" and start having our citizens be responsible for themselves without government. Well said, TLusby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 SPare, There is, in some corners of moderate America, the vague notion that, unlike the current administration, a Kerry administration may ease up just a bit on the "bring it on" face that the US has shown the world since 9/11, and make at least a passing attempt at remembering that "diplomacy" is only a dirty word on message board forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OURYEAR#56 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I think that Kerry is not the best this party should have to offer. But I don't think Bush s the best canidate for the republicans either. This election is shaping up to be one based on party affiliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 The Dem's don't really have a good canidate, maybe Hilary but that's scraping! The Republican's have about three good canidates Powell, Guliani and the senator from AZ., forgot his name! Why does everyone think Free health care is the answer? We will pay for it anyway, one way or another. Spare, do you like the Canadian Health care system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Originally posted by Destino 7 is a dream, it will be reduced in congress. Now answer this, when was the last time the min wage was adjusted for inflation? oops....you forgot that it's been going down and this after it's all said and done isn't really a raise at all. 1997? (not sure) I never said it was good or bad.. just pointing out that the two seem to conflict from Kerry's website.. They said from the website something about it being equivalent to 4$ something from 1949 compared to todays rate.... edit: oops.. you didnt forget to talk down to people so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SPare Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 The quick answer to Canadian socialized medicine is that it's OK when you've got a young population making lots of money in taxes and not making many demands on the system. Unfortunately, the system's on the breaking point right now. Health care spending is the biggest drain on provincial budgets, and is growing at a rate almost 2x as much as the economy is growing. Within 5-10 years, Canadians are going to have to give up just about all other forms of government spending just to feed this beast. Meanwhile, waiting times are getting longer and longer. Just so that you guys are aware, that's the hidden cost of socialized medicine- you pay for it all through your taxes, but you need to wait 6 months to get anything done (sometimes longer). The other cost is that it takes a lot longer for new (expensive) therapies to become available. To put things in perspective, imagine that you had an HMO telling you that you could get coverage for treating your illness, but instead of the one that had a 98% treatment rate, you had to settle for one with a 70% success rate, and on top of that, you had to wait 8 months on a waiting list to get it. Perhaps some of that exists in the States, but that's business as usual up here. Personal example- my Mom was diagnosed with breast cancer this year. The diagnosis was made in January. The decision to have a lumpectomy and radiation therapy was made in the middle of February. She actually had the lumpectomy in April, and the radiation therapy in June. Oh, and the only reason that it happened so quickly is that she went to a clinic in Thunder Bay to get it done- all of the clinics in Ottawa and Toronto were booked solid until September. To put this in perspective for all of you, think of someone who lives in boston needing to fly to Minnesota for a month's worth of treatment. I should also add that the surgery and radiation left a greater number of side-effects because the most up to date techniques were not available in Canada because the equipment required was too expensive and hadn't gotten into the system yet. Bottom line, is that yes, she got treated, and has made a full recovery. For that we are all happy. However, to say that the experience was as good as it could be is a stretch of elephantine proportions. The really unfortunate thing is that most people up here don't believe that there's any other way of doing things. While I'm not sure that the mostly privatised system of the US is necessarily the best way of doing things, even introducing the spectre of someone other than government providing healthcare is strongly rejected by the Canadian population. All I'm going to say to all of those who think that socialized medicine is a panacaea- be careful for what you wish for- you might just get it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 All I'm going to say to all of those who think that socialized medicine is a panacaea- be careful for what you wish for- you might just get it... Oh, it's coming................just a matter of time And to suggest our healthcare system is an example of free market healthcare is simply not true. To quote PJ Orourke "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 I have a story about Canadian health care too. My grandma is Canadian. Recently the rest home where she lives made all her children give permission or else they would pull the plug on her. You are reading that correctly. The children were not asked to give permission TO pull the plug on her. They HAD to give permission to NOT pull the plug on her. That is the way it is in Canada. The system is so backed up that they are willing to pull the plug on people, so someone else can have their bed. She is not on her death bed either. She is not the healthiest, but she is far from a state where she could die at any moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted August 24, 2004 Share Posted August 24, 2004 I've yet to see any proof at all that privatizing the entire school system will do anything but increase the gap between rich and poor. Private schools have the advantage now because they only get kids who have active parents and can pick and choose whom they acept. That's irrelevent, this is about the right to choose, the fact is voucher's should be givin out to help subsidise the cost for private school's, why shouldn't a parent have the right to use their money the way they see fit, instead of being forced to pay for a failing school system, where is the freedom of choice? Why are people told what to do with their money when it comes to school's? Yet a woman can't be told what to do with her body, you don't have a problem if they want to send their child to an early grave, yet you will fight tooth and nail to force a mother to send her child to a failing school district, with kid's who's parent's could care less how they do, with teacher's who care less if a child learn's, because it's almost impossible to fire them. There will alway's be a gap between rich, and poor, smart, and dumb, and so on, why is the left so intent on trying to make everyone the same? We are not, and never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.