Guest Gichin13 Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 What I see going on is the largest government deficit in history. That is not true to "conservative" fiscal policies. And this is coming at a time when: 1. They started with a project 5.4 trillion surplus at the ten year mark; 2. We are about the face a dramatically aging population as baby boomers retire; and 3. We have trillions of IOUs of previously spent social security dollars. The only way we can recover any hope of saving social security (and I have some serious doubts as to whether it is fixable given politics), we simply have to get back to fiscal sanity. I fully recognize the inherent total and complete irony of turning away from a very conservative president and turning to a pretty liberal newcomer, but the reality is Bush has clearly demonstrated for four straight years he simply will not demand fiscal sanity. If nothing else, facing a potential veto over the budget will force some gridlock and some hard bargaining on both sides of the aisle instead of the free government give away that has been 2000-2004. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by TC4 And my reply to you is this: what's the population of Finland? It's about 5.4 million according to this: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fi.html My point is this, to try to have the same type of health care system run by the government in this country like you see in Finland isn't gonna work in a nation of 280+ million people. And what if the goverment decides to impliment a system like tnhey have in Canada, where you can't opt out for private insurance? 1) Everyone is guaranteed emergency service ON DEMAND in our country currently. This includes, but is not limited to, life threatening injuries or sickness. 2) In Canada, you are not guaranteed ON DEMAND service. BTY, if I have the money to pay for surgery myself - there is not a sole in this country that is going to stop me from having that operation. Do you have a problem with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 I would ask again that nobody vote "Against" a candidate. Vote FOR something. There is something in the 3 candidates that best represents your views.. I think Bush does mine, even though I dislike his spending and his border issues and caving to the U.N. I like the No school left behind. His stance on Iraq His tax cuts during a recession His leadership in tough times That is my personal opinion and that is what I'm voting FOR. Do NOT do what Kerry did with the bill he voted for before he voted against it. Yes it was a protest vote and it really didnt matter in the grand scheme of things... but it was a wasted vote because he didnt vote the way he really wanted to and it came back to haunt him.. Get in there and vote, even if it cancels out mine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurgundyBomber Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Pretty good debate, once the the children stopped hurling time-honored names and more adult voices began to speak... The Health Insurance problem in the country has very little to do with Tort Reform or litigation policies per se (let's be honest, corporations would love this to allow them to maximize profits), but with Gichin13's point, the use of premiums to fund investments. I suppose you could make a point about Democratic vs. Republican policies with respect to the economy, but the plain truth is that in the short term, underperforming investments fueled premium hikes. What's going to finish the job is the aging of the country's population. Not only is this stressing Social Security, but it's going to lead to increases in medical needs (and therefore health costs) across the board: medicines, physician visits, and emergency room use. When you consider that more and more Americans are using the ER for first-line medical care you can see the symptoms of a much larger problem. It's interesting that while we are younger and in our middle-ages we tend to always go for lower tax strategies: let each fend for himself, it's the American way, and so forth. But ask your parents or grandparents how they vote. I expect most are on one medication or another, and they'll vote for whoever's promising Social Security and low premiums. If you've done a great job of saving (which most Americans don't) and you have good habits and genes, you might be able to sail well into old age under your own power, but most are looking for the government to make up the difference. Is that the American way? I don't know, ask me in 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer Posted October 16, 2004 Author Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by visionary ------------------------------------------------------- Ok, hope I didn't upset you...why do you think Kerry is better for America...what is his foriegn policy plan for the future... what is his plan for social security...what is his plan for Tort Reform...do you trust Kerry when he says that Bush is going to reinstate a draft? (he implied it today.) If you don't even think that his plan on healthcare will work, why vote for him...Bush and co. have given us the first plan in 15 years. With Kerry it will probably be another 15 years before we get anything even as good as it is going to be from the Bush plan (which has not completely gone into effect yet). That is my qaundry, I really don't know if Kerry will be better for America, but I no longer believe that Bush and company are any good for America. I have lost faith in this administration and the ridiculousness of the negative ad's seems to have pushed me over the edge. They are running around the clock in Ohio right now, both sides, but the Republican ad's just seem more like slimy marketing tricks. Very good at deception and that just really bothers me. And you did not upset me in the least, I normally avoid discussions of politics, but this election has just got me really bugged. I consider my vote important and I just want to make the right decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC4 Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by portisbowwow 1) Everyone is guaranteed emergency service ON DEMAND in our country currently. This includes, but is not limited to, life threatening injuries or sickness. 2) In Canada, you are not guaranteed ON DEMAND service. BTY, if I have the money to pay for surgery myself - there is not a sole in this country that is going to stop me from having that operation. Do you have a problem with that? And if they change things do you think that might not change as well? I'm not saying that they will for sure, but you will have people on the far left who will most likely say that the ONLY way to make this system work will be to MAKE everyone, rich and poor alike, use the very same system, with no exceptions As for your 2nd argument, it's not me that would have a problem. But on the other hand, if we indeed end up with a system such as the one in Canada, it will be the Fedreal government you will need to worry about. And you might not be able to find a doctor willing to risk the possible loss of his medical licence or maybe even prison to do such an operation, whether you need it or not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSF Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma So you must think then that what Bill did with Monica had a negative effect on his ability to lead?? Which is completely BS and I am a republican. The guy made a mistake but it did not change how he made decisions. We can all get on the left or right side but the botton line is Clinton did a lot of good for this country. It shows today. I think where we have problems is people see the role as president as someone they like. Yes you should like the person but remember there is more then just you and the people that agree with you that live in this country. You need someone to be able to make the decisions that have no bearing on you. Which is the one thing I don't like about Kerry is because he is swayed by public oppinion, if that were the case then why need a president, just have US vote for everything. Good points Jbooma! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atloldskin Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Kilmer, it is sad to admit that one "ad" could swing your vote either way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Just for comparison sake...here is a nice positive John Kerry ad. See how he positively lies and says that Snow said something that even MSNBC and others were saying yesterday is a gross distortion. I also like how he poitively keeps using that nice little fake job loss number that he has used in every debate and has been blasted by everyone in the media for using because it is off by a million jobs. Good idea of tripling the job loss numbers from their true number... http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_1014.html apparantly though this ad has had a strong impact on people :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by visionary Just for comparison sake...here is a nice positive John Kerry ad. See how he positively lies and says that Snow said something that even MSNBC and others were saying yesterday is a gross distortion. The site you linked to seems to have authenticated sources for every claim they've made. Could you please indicate a place that shows the "gross distortion"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Well there is no need to do that for the job numbers, e\since everyone and their dog has seen it mentioned plenty of times on about every talkshow that the job loss was 600,000 not 1.6 million. As for the part about the secretary's comments being mistorted, I was going by what they were saying on Hardball last night, Chris Matthews and David Shuster (the MSNBC presidential election campaign ad guru) are not what one would consider unreputable Republican shills. However even if those were not so, the ad is still disgustingly negative and ridiculously done, to sound as if Bush is the kind of guy who goes around beating kids or robbing graves. The tone of the voice over alone is embarrasingly nasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yomar Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 can people please stop saying "methinks" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by The Killer Bandersnatch can people please stop saying "methinks" Medoubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Originally posted by visionary Well there is no need to do that for the job numbers, e\since everyone and their dog has seen it mentioned plenty of times on about every talkshow that the job loss was 600,000 not 1.6 million. I understand what you're referencing, but the ad doesn't mention the 1.6M figure. (Although, the supporting evidence they cite on the page do seem to imply that the stat mentioned for Ohio comes from the same "source" as the 1.6M.) But, what I was asking for information on was the aparant argument with the Snow quote, and the web page cited seems to have a valid source for the quote, that makes it look accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Well I checked to see if there was a transcript of Friday's Hardball show on MSNBC.com but it wasn't available yet. Anyway, my original point of posting it was that it seems kind of silly that a negative ad by Bush could sway soemone, when the Kerry ones or at least that particular ad seem much nastier... Then again...I suppose accuracy must be taken into high account here as well...and I did accuse Kerry's ad of being innacurate or at least as far as I have heard being inaccurate, so whatever... I have other things to worry about right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer Well I believe character has a lot to do with whether a person can get the job done. So just to get this back to the main point: You finally can't vote for Bush because of something he said about Kerry? But Kerry wanting to give Iran Nuclear fuel to see if they will use it wrong and be an enemy slipped through? But Kerry wanting to give illegal aliens amnesty was like water off a ducks back? But Kerry saying in the Past and alluding to now that we need to pass a global test, but thats o.k. cause Kerry said it and it wasnt repeated by Bush about Kerry? Of all the things you could have used against Bush... Him saying something about what Kerry said seems to be waaaaaay down the scale... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gichin13 Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Originally posted by visionary Well there is no need to do that for the job numbers, e\since everyone and their dog has seen it mentioned plenty of times on about every talkshow that the job loss was 600,000 not 1.6 million. As for the part about the secretary's comments being mistorted, I was going by what they were saying on Hardball last night, Chris Matthews and David Shuster (the MSNBC presidential election campaign ad guru) are not what one would consider unreputable Republican shills. However even if those were not so, the ad is still disgustingly negative and ridiculously done, to sound as if Bush is the kind of guy who goes around beating kids or robbing graves. The tone of the voice over alone is embarrasingly nasty. If you are looking at private sector jobs, the job loss is 1.6 million jobs. It goes down to around 800,000 if you factor in government jobs. I thought conservatives were for private sector rather than government jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer Posted October 18, 2004 Author Share Posted October 18, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear So just to get this back to the main point: You finally can't vote for Bush because of something he said about Kerry? But Kerry wanting to give Iran Nuclear fuel to see if they will use it wrong and be an enemy slipped through? But Kerry wanting to give illegal aliens amnesty was like water off a ducks back? But Kerry saying in the Past and alluding to now that we need to pass a global test, but thats o.k. cause Kerry said it and it wasnt repeated by Bush about Kerry? Of all the things you could have used against Bush... Him saying something about what Kerry said seems to be waaaaaay down the scale... Actually no...it had nothing to do with Kerry. If you read my post, what bothered me about the ad was the fact that is seemed as though the authors had no idea the current state of health care in america and that the Doctors today do not have the final say on treament...the insurance companies do. That is what really bothered me about the ad. As far as the silly comments of people stating that one ad swayed my vote, well I guess that is my fault for the way I started this rant thread. Suffice to say I think I have made my stance quite clear in this thread. And I would have to say I am back to being undecided because of something said in this thread. I will try not to vote "against someone", but find a reason to vote for someone. I have got a couple weeks to find something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.