A letter from Kerry

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

A letter from Kerry

Postby kwirl » Tue Sep 21, 2004 4:43 am

Dear Supporter,

This election is about choices. The most important choices a president makes are about protecting America at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.

Three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight and to win the war on terrorism.

In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them.

To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength -- strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power -- our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values -- each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make to fight and win the war on terror.

That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops -- and nearly 90 percent of the casualties -- are American. Despite the president's claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do and what is still to be done.

In June, the president declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march."

But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people.

So do the facts on the ground.

Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.

42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July -- 66 in August and already 54 halfway through September.

And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August -- more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times -- a 400% increase.

Falluja, Ramadi, Samarra, even parts of Baghdad -- are now "no go zones" -- breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shiite cleric, Muqtada al-Sadr, who is accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Violence against Iraqis from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation is on the rise.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.

Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.

Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth -- the truth that the commander in chief owes to our troops and the American people.

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

The president has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the president has made a series of catastrophic decisions from the beginning in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.

The first and most fundamental mistake was the president's failure to tell the truth to the American people.

He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

His two main rationales -- weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection -- have been proved false by the president's own weapons inspectors and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.

The president also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.

He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.

And America will pay an even heavier price for the president's lack of candor.

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.

Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.

In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."

How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today?

This president's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.

The president now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq.

That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment -- and judgment is what we look for in a president.

This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings... major outside studies... and even some in the administration itself... predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.

This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.

The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.

They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.

They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.

They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition -- pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this president has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?

By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.

Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were... and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the president squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the vice president claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."

The president's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.

Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this president's watch -- the emerging nuclear danger from Iran -- the tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia -- and the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11 in order invade Iraq.

We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.

The president's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.

We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.

The president's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

Let me put it plainly: The president's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the president the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This president, any president would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This president misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the president gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."

Instead, the president rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?

I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein -- who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.

The president's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the commander in chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the president himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come.

All across this country people ask me what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the president was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this president makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq -- harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is -- and what is not -- happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq ... it doesn't add up ... to a pretty picture [and] ... we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.

First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.

Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the president finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do -- but it was late.

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops, trainers for Iraq's security forces, a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission, more financial assistance, and real debt relief.

Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter.

And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this president may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.

Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.

But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.

Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority, 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical, 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price.

Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.

Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the president agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission, the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.

The president should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as president today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective -- a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.

In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions.

At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the president has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.

The president often says that in a post 9/11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do.

George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror -- and make us safer.

Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.

If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are that we can make America stronger and safer than it is then November 2 is your chance to speak and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.



John Kerry
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:11 pm

Yup, and as usual Kerry is full of critisisms and provides little to no ideas or insight on what he would do. Oh thats right, becasue he doesn't know what he'd do... he changes his mind weekly.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 21, 2004 1:25 pm

Yup, and as usual Bush is full of critisisms and provides little to no ideas or insight on what he would do. Oh thats right, becasue he doesn't know what he'd do... he lies to us daily.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:01 pm

Wow what a creative post.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 21, 2004 2:28 pm

Your parroting of the GOP's standard rhetoric was no more creative...

Sorry.

If you want creative responses try thinking on your own, post an actual opinion and maybe we'll respond to it.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:42 pm

That was an opinion, not repeating rhetoric. I've seen Kerry in action in my state for years, and he's done absolutely nothing. He doesn't have a piece of legislation that he wrote as a senator... all hes done is coast along the tails of fat Teddy Kennedy. Look at his senate record... it is apalling when he actually shows up to vote.
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Postby Sesexe » Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:07 pm

You mean like spending 40% of your time in office on vacation?

Gee.. never seen that before.
Asup group-says 'who needs sex ed when you got sesexe.'
Targsk group-says 'sexedse'
mount dragon
You climb on and ride Tocx'enth'orix, the elder black dragon.
You have learned something new about mount!
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Tue Sep 21, 2004 7:58 pm

http://www.kerryoniraq.com

link to watch the documentary is on the right side.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:53 am

rylan wrote:That was an opinion, not repeating rhetoric. I've seen Kerry in action in my state for years, and he's done absolutely nothing. He doesn't have a piece of legislation that he wrote as a senator... all hes done is coast along the tails of fat Teddy Kennedy. Look at his senate record... it is apalling when he actually shows up to vote.


Funny how your "opinion" matches the GOP's constant rantings so well. ARe you sure you didn't just watch too much of the Republican National Convention?

Besides, I'll take a guy who does nothing and changes his mind over a guy who is arrogantly railroading this country into the ground any day.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:11 am

Sarvis,

You are heavy on conclusions and light on reasoning.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:31 am

Uh oh! Corth got sucked in by the propaganda mobile as well. Come back,guys, while there is still hope for your souls!
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:37 am

"You saw their convention a few weeks ago. They had a slogan: "Hope is on the way." But with all their flip-flopping and zig-zagging their real slogan should be, "Hype is on the way."" ? George Pataki

"Senator Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual America sees two John Kerrys." ? Dick Cheney

"Yes, people in public office at times do change their minds, I've done that, or they realize they are wrong or circumstances change.

But John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception. "? Rudy Giuliani


Yeah, speakers at the RNC spent half their time painting Kerry as a flip-flopper... but I'm "light on reasoning" when I point out that calling Kerry a flip-flopper is GOP rhetoric...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:09 am

In this thread, Sarvis, you have made the following statements:

1. Bush "lies to us daily".
2. Bush is "arrogantly railroading this country into the ground"

I fail to see any reasoning behind them. They are conclusions without any reasoned argument underlying them. That is what I meant when I said that you are heavy on conclusions but light on reasoning.

Additionally, even though you are a Kerry partisan, you do not even try to defend (or explain) his constant shifting on the issue of the Iraq war. The documentary that I linked to shows how Kerry has shifted his position over the years depending upon what is in his best political interest at any given time. I think reasonable people should be concerned about this trait in a potential US President. However, you do not address those reasonable concerns. Rather, you denigrate them as mere 'GOP Rhetoric', or 'constant rantings.'

I would like to see how you might defend Kerry, but unfortunately, as is all too common with Kerry supporters, you are unable to. The reason, in all likelihood, is that you really aren't interested in what Kerry brings to the table. Like most Kerry supporters, you are for Kerry because you are against Bush. This is why Kerry is going to lose the election.

Heres a challenge for you: Describe in a few sentences what Kerry's position on Iraq is.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Postby kwirl » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:57 am

Kerry has changed his position on Iraq...Kerry changed his position on Vietnam - for both reversals he has received serious criticism for this 'flip flopping.'

Lets start chronologically. Kerry, a young patriot, believes that he has a duty to his country to participate in a war that he has been told is important to the safety and future of his home. He goes to war, and despite realizing that he was misled, he fulfils the oaths he took to his country. He puts his life on the line to save his brothers, and when he comes home, he tells the truth to the people waiting for him.

He believed his government, and kept his word in defending their practice, and when he saw that he was misled, he came home and did something about it.

In Iraq, he was told by his government that Iraq was an immediate and present danger. He supported their decision with the evidence as presented to him presumed factual and honest.

In time, he learned that he was misled, that the truth was not a prevalent factor, and he changed his position based on the new evidence at hand.



Maybe you think a leader who ignores the facts and the obvious reality around him is a good thing, but I believe a leader who is adaptive is a damned positive attribute. He had a decision to make, and he made what he thought was the right decision at the time. Unlike Bush, however, when he realized he had made the wrong decision, he changed his position.

Bush's refusal to recognize a mistake and make efforts in reparations are costing the American public more than just money and lives, it costs us our credibility and standing in the world.

Kerry doesn't have a solid platform? Kerry is about the economy, health care, American pride and credibility, and building a positive and solid foreign relationship network with other nations that we need as allies.

Bush wants to make rich people richer, abolish the middle class, ensure that the people who put him in office against the vote of the American people are compensated, and choosing corporate affiliations over international reputation.

What is the most powerful GOP assult on Kerry's campaign? It breaks down to "Hahaha, why would you vote for someone who believed his president would not knowingly mislead and lie to him?"

Having George W. Bush reelected on November 2nd will be the most devastating blow the American future since our inception 228 years ago. I honestly take pride in seeing the way America is rallying to protect itself from this virus, and watching Americans conquer his vast financial resources and political allies and see past the lies to vote for truth and hope makes me believe that we have a future after all.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:14 am

From everything I've seen of Kerry's position on the war, he's been consistent. There was an article in our school paper last week talking about how he changes his mind on the war constantly. Unfortunately, all it proved was that he was more for it when he thought the president would handle it better than he actually did (in Kerry's estimation). The most damning evidence I've seen is the vote against the funding for the troops. He stated that he would not vote against taking care of the troops... for some reason. This has been quoted a couple times and I've never found out the context (can't find the quote). So, he may have said not vote against for partisan reasons. I don't know. I know he wanted the bill at least partiallyfunded and there was no reason it shouldn't have been. No reason except that the republicans refused to pass it when it imposed a tax on the top tax payers. Fortunately, they "flip-flopped" when that was removed.

The whole flip-flopping thing is just stupid. Changing your mind about Vietnam was completely understandable, especially if you were there.

You can say he's weak on defense. Ignoring all the votes he shared with prominent republicans, I'll just point to the good old stand-by used by Bush when he goes against things he said while running. 9/11 changed everything. If it changed everything for Bush, it can change everything for Kerry. He can now be stronger on defense without being a flip-flopper.

I don't think Bush has done a bad job as president. I don't care for some of his more partisan moves and I completely disagree with his economic programs. Economic and ideological differences are more than enough for me not to vote for Bush. I don't always agree with Kerry. I too often disagree with Bush.

Finally, is being born again a flip flop?
Hyldryn
Sojourner
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Maryland

Postby Hyldryn » Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:28 am

So, what's better someone who changes his mind too much, or someone too stubborn to do it at all?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:18 pm

Corth wrote:In this thread, Sarvis, you have made the following statements:

1. Bush "lies to us daily".



Aside from WMDs and the current status of Iraq... He now tells us he's going to give record funding to education, despite not having properly funded it in the past ,and then a memo surfaces suggesting pretty much everyone is going to have to cut their budgets in 2006.

He says he will cut the deficit in half over the next five years, despite promising record levels of funding (which I already pointed out as a probable lie) AND tax cuts. He's either lying again or he has some magic wand that magically creates money!

Ah, screw it. There's an entire book written on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 55-6875018

2. Bush is "arrogantly railroading this country into the ground"


What would _you_ call a budget surplus turned into a deficit? What would you call millions of lost jobs as Bush encourages companies to move jobs overseas? What would you call changing the overtime rules so that the people who need it can no longer get it?


I'd call it arrogantly railroading this country into the ground. Your milage may vary.

I fail to see any reasoning behind them. They are conclusions without any reasoned argument underlying them. That is what I meant when I said that you are heavy on conclusions but light on reasoning.


I don't think I've _ever_, from anyone, seen any reasoning to support Bush beyond "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

Well, ok.. there's also the occasional selfish "I don't want the government spending my money!" Those people would apparently rather have the government spend their grandchildren's money.

Kind of ingenious though isn't it? I mean of the GOP. Create a huge deficit, then when your opponent says he has to raise taxes to fix it he automatically looks bad to a lot of people.

Additionally, even though you are a Kerry partisan, you do not even try to defend (or explain) his constant shifting on the issue of the Iraq war. The documentary that I linked to shows how Kerry has shifted his position over the years depending upon what is in his best political interest at any given time. I think reasonable people should be concerned about this trait in a potential US President. However, you do not address those reasonable concerns. Rather, you denigrate them as mere 'GOP Rhetoric', or 'constant rantings.'


No, I denigrated comments of "flip-flopping" as GOP Rhetoric.

As for Kerry's position on the Iraq war. Well, it's evolved over time hasn't it? It's amazing that when everyone beleived Bush's claim that Saddam had WMD and Al Qaeda ties Kerry thought it was a good idea to attack, but as we gained more and more information that Saddam did NOT have those he decided maybe it wasn't such a good idea.

Of course, even in your documentary if you listen to Kerry instead of just reading the transition text you'll realize that, even right after the vote he said he was voting for the _authority_ to go to war. Yet at the end of the documentary the last time they show Kerry he sas the exact same thing, and they call it a flip-flop! It's simply amazing...

Even if he IS just changing his mind to get more votes there is nothing wrong with that. Politicians are supposed to represent the people. If the majority of citizens think an idea is bad, a politician SHOULD back off on it. Otherwise he is no longer representing the will of the people.

I would like to see how you might defend Kerry, but unfortunately, as is all too common with Kerry supporters, you are unable to. The reason, in all likelihood, is that you really aren't interested in what Kerry brings to the table. Like most Kerry supporters, you are for Kerry because you are against Bush. This is why Kerry is going to lose the election.


*yawn* Who's light on reasoning now?



Heres a challenge for you: Describe in a few sentences what Kerry's position on Iraq is.


That's an interesting question since his position was pretty clearly explained in the letter at the top of this page.

How's this:

Kerry thinks we should get international support in the form of troops and money so that we can rebuild security and infrastructure in Iraq and actually accomplish something over there.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:42 pm

I also like the panel in that documentary about voting for a bill before voting against it. See, now if all you ever do is watch Bush commercials or watch this documentary that's pretty bad sounding. Of course, any time you see just one sentence you oughtta know it's out of context...


"Kerry was referring to a measure he co-sponsored that would have provided the $87 billion while also temporarily reversing Bush's tax cuts for those making $400,000 a year or more. That measure was rejected  57-42." - http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=155

That's what Kerry voted for, a fiscally responsible way of outfitting our troops. When that failed he voted against the bill.

But you know, just keep on listening to that propaganda. Remember, only Bush can prevent terror strikes.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:18 pm

Sarvis,

Thats somewhat better. Now I have something I can work with. You bring up a lot of different issues, but i'll try to cover as much as possible without making this message un-readable.

Your assertions:

1. Bush lies to us daily because

a) He lied to us about WMD's in Iraq
b) He told us he was going to give 'record' funding to education, but now it comes out that the budget is going to have to be cut.
c) He has not properly funded education in the past.
d) In general, he promises lots of programs and at the same time promises tax cuts and promises to cut the defecit in half over five years.

First, WMD's. Bush may or may not have been wrong about whether there were WMD's in Iraq. Some have argued that Saddam may have transferred his stock of chemicals and biological materials to a friendly entity such as Syria. Regardless, there was no dispute prior to the war as to whether Iraq had WMD's. Everyone assumed it on the basis of credible intelligence. Not just the USA. For instance, there is ample evidence that he used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the past. Even assuming that he never had WMD's in the first place, this isn't an instance where anyone lied about it, its an instance of faulty intelligence.

Second, you make a lot of related points that essentially show that its impossible for Bush to deliver the programs he has promised, while at the same time cutting taxes, and at the same time cutting the deficit. I cannot argue here. I am not a huge fan of Bush, and his handling of the economy, in my opinion, has been negligent. I will correct you on a couple of points. First, although the Federal government contributes to education funding, schools are for the most part funded on the local level. Additionally, the US does in fact pay more per student in education expenses than any other country in the world. This is an issue that would be suitable for discussion in another thread, but suffice to say, many experts believe that throwing more money at the schools will not solve any problems. There are deeper underlying issues that need to be resolved.

Also, I would point out that Kerry's track record of being the most liberal member of the Senate, and voting in favor of just about any entitlement program (when he bothers to vote at all), would indicate that he would be no better than bush in handling the economy.

In conclusion, its arguable that Bush is lying to us when he makes his campaign promises for more programs and less taxes. On the other hand, all candidates make up such BS in election years. Nothing out of the ordinary here.

2. Bush is "arrogantly railroading this country into the ground" because under his tenure, the budget deficit has increased, and millions of jobs have been 'lost' overseeas.

Again, i will not defend Bush on his handling of the economy. It can be expected that a costly war will cause a deficit. What wasn't necessary is a lot of the other pork barrel programs that Bush has signed into law in order to appease certain groups of voters. On the other hand, my point still stands that voting for pork and entitlements is something that Kerry has done better than anyone else in the Senate.

As for jobs 'lost' overseas, first off, this is something that the president has little control over. We have a capatalist system in this country, and as a necessary by-product of capatalism, those who are in a position to hire workers will try to get the most bang for their buck. The reason that Indians are being hired to take CSR calls for companies such as Dell or whatever, is that it costs much more to hire American workers to do the same job. Taking any steps to 'protect' the american worker would essentially be a tax upon business. I would submit that the reason american workers can command such high wages in the first place is that we have a long tradition of more or less unfettered capatalism in this country. Would you rather that American's have the standard of living of India? Or for that matter, North Korea?

Regardless, I do not see this has anything to do with 'railroading this country', arrogantly or not.

-----------------------------

In response to your defense of Kerry's 'evolving' position on Iraq, I'll point out that there is a difference between honestly changing your mind over time, or on the other hand, changing one's political position based upon political expediency. The documentary that I linked to shows how Kerry was among the more hawkish Democrats in the days before the war on Iraq, but after seeing that he would not win the Democratic nomination while holding that position, he simply attempted to re-write history and make himself into a Dean democrat.

This is what scares me about Kerry. The fight against islamic extremism is more important than budget deficits or education funding. Its a fight over our right to exist. It is truly disgusting, to me, to see a politican willing to change their position on this all important topic based solely on what will more likely get them elected. This is not the type of leadership that we need at this moment in time.

Bush has not done a good job on the war against Islamic extremism, but he has been adequate. There have been no major attacks on US soil since 9/11. Say what you will about Iraq, I am happy that the fighting is going on over there and that the Arab fighters rushing into Iraq are not currently rushing into JFK airport. And since, for me, this is the only topic that matters, I will vote for Bush.

Corth
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:30 pm

"There have been no major attacks on US soil since 9/11."

This is the first time in history that we're measuring success by the years we've gone without a successful attack on US soil. The largest terrorist attack against the US before 9/11 within the past 20 years came from Oaklahoma city, right (seriously, correct me if I'm wrong here). I know there was an attempt at taking down the towers, but it failed and the man behind it was captured. So, it seems that there is always some time between major attacks. I'm not sure pointing to three years of not being really messed up by arab terrorists is proof enough that we're kicking ass in the war on terror. I think moving into Afghanistan was a good move. I find the war in Iraq to be a little unnecessary.

The intelligence in Iraq was problematic and so I don't really blame Bush for believing it. With so many sources saying he's got it, he should have it. I'm just not sure why we dismissed the UN inspectors. Or, why we didn't send hoardes of inspectors in to make sure that they were doing their job. This might have pissed the UN off, but why would we care about that? Some people say the sanctions from Iraq would have been gone in no time and all inspectors would be gone. Well, to monitor them after this, we could have increased intelligence greatly in that country. Either way would probably have been less costly and more efficient then trying to nation build.

Nation building is a noble idea, but we had to know that the people of Iraq were not really gonna think the world of us. Some supported us. Many do not. Trying to get a government going with a semi-hostile populace in a fairly hostile region seems like a bad idea.

I'm glad we all agree that Bush's economic moves don't make any sense. Kerry may vote for entitlements often, but at least he supports some attempt to pay for them.

We view terrorism as if it's this new and evolved thing. The methods they used could have been used for a long time now. Increased communication and fund transfer abilities have increased their ability to operate. The US had to adjust to this idea and seems to have done so. It was one of our major downfalls. Still, intelligence has been increased and is working to cope these new technological problems. The people who look out for us are looking out for us more than ever. I don't think they'll try to protect us any harder if Bush is in office than if Kerry is in office. My point here is, I don't understand being more scared about terrorism than you were before. The devistating effects of it have become more clear, but the possibilities haven't changed that much since before the attack.

As for the arab fighters rushing into Iraq instead of JFK, they can do both. I don't really see Iraq as the battle of the bulge of terrorism.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:34 pm

Oh, and I agree with Rylan's point about Kerry not doing major things in Mass. If you really want someone who has great experience in law making and the workings of congress, you should always look to the ex-gov. of texas.

Kerry serves in war and people bitch about his service.

Kerry serves in congress and people bitch about his service in congress.

Moral of the story: If you want to become a major elected official, don't ever do or say anything.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:06 pm

Corth wrote:
First, WMD's. Bush may or may not have been wrong about whether there were WMD's in Iraq. Some have argued that Saddam may have transferred his stock of chemicals and biological materials to a friendly entity such as Syria. Regardless, there was no dispute prior to the war as to whether Iraq had WMD's. Everyone assumed it on the basis of credible intelligence. Not just the USA. For instance, there is ample evidence that he used chemical weapons against the Kurds in the past. Even assuming that he never had WMD's in the first place, this isn't an instance where anyone lied about it, its an instance of faulty intelligence.


That's funny, I remember a lot of other nations in the world not being very sure about the WMD. That's why we ended up having to go in without UN support!

Also, can you be sure that it was faulty intelligence rather than Bush being willfully ignorant of the facts?

Second, you make a lot of related points that essentially show that its impossible for Bush to deliver the programs he has promised, while at the same time cutting taxes, and at the same time cutting the deficit. I cannot argue here. I am not a huge fan of Bush, and his handling of the economy, in my opinion, has been negligent.


This pretty much says it all doesn't it? How can someone so inept with the the normal basic duties of a President be trusted with the defense of the nation?

I will correct you on a couple of points. First, although the Federal government contributes to education funding, schools are for the most part funded on the local level. Additionally, the US does in fact pay more per student in education expenses than any other country in the world. This is an issue that would be suitable for discussion in another thread, but suffice to say, many experts believe that throwing more money at the schools will not solve any problems. There are deeper underlying issues that need to be resolved.


Actually I was talking about Pres. Bush's No Child Left Behind program, which IS federally funded. Well, underfunded:

"The President?s 2003 budget ? the first education budget after he signed and touted the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) -  proposed to cut NCLB programs by $90 million overall, leaving these programs more than $7 billion short of what was authorized under the bill. Bush?s 2004 budget for NCLB is just 1.9% above what he proposed in 2003 - $619 less than needed to offset inflation." - http://www.house.gov/appropriations_dem ... onfilm.htm

Also, I would point out that Kerry's track record of being the most liberal member of the Senate, and voting in favor of just about any entitlement program (when he bothers to vote at all), would indicate that he would be no better than bush in handling the economy.


Right, because making sure people are happy and can have healthy lives is terrible for the economy. I mean, people NEVER spend money when they are happy!

In conclusion, its arguable that Bush is lying to us when he makes his campaign promises for more programs and less taxes. On the other hand, all candidates make up such BS in election years. Nothing out of the ordinary here.


Doesn't mean it's acceptable. Of course, I don't think most politicians have entire books devoted to their lies...

Does it excuse his lies about what's going on in Iraq right now?

Again, i will not defend Bush on his handling of the economy. It can be expected that a costly war will cause a deficit. What wasn't necessary is a lot of the other pork barrel programs that Bush has signed into law in order to appease certain groups of voters. On the other hand, my point still stands that voting for pork and entitlements is something that Kerry has done better than anyone else in the Senate.


Ah, nice big unfounded claims. Care to cite that?

Also, giving a big tax cut while increasing spending and trying to hold a very expensive war is pretty much the height of idiocy.

As for jobs 'lost' overseas, first off, this is something that the president has little control over. We have a capatalist system in this country, and as a necessary by-product of capatalism, those who are in a position to hire workers will try to get the most bang for their buck. The reason that Indians are being hired to take CSR calls for companies such as Dell or whatever, is that it costs much more to hire American workers to do the same job. Taking any steps to 'protect' the american worker would essentially be a tax upon business. I would submit that the reason american workers can command such high wages in the first place is that we have a long tradition of more or less unfettered capatalism in this country. Would you rather that American's have the standard of living of India? Or for that matter, North Korea?


The current tax code encourages corporations to hire overseas, and Bush passed another little bit of tax code that makes it an even more attractive option:

http://www.cdw.com/webcontent/editorial ... TaxCut.asp
http://www.outsourcing.org/modules/news ... toryid=195
http://www.forrelease.com/D20040226/dct ... 07045.html

Essentially, not only can corporations completely avoid taxes on foreign income they can buy new equipment for offshore use and get MORE tax breaks on it!



Regardless, I do not see this has anything to do with 'railroading this country', arrogantly or not.


...

In response to your defense of Kerry's 'evolving' position on Iraq, I'll point out that there is a difference between honestly changing your mind over time, or on the other hand, changing one's political position based upon political expediency. The documentary that I linked to shows how Kerry was among the more hawkish Democrats in the days before the war on Iraq, but after seeing that he would not win the Democratic nomination while holding that position, he simply attempted to re-write history and make himself into a Dean democrat.


Ok, first of all this is entirely based on your documentary and GOP rhetoric. I already pointed out one specific scene in your documentary that is misleading, and you didn't bother trying to deal with that.

But why is there an 8 month gap between clips they show, from 9/17/02 to 5/3/03? That leaves out everything Kerry may have been saying during the entire buildup to the war and the war itself. When the documentary DOES pick back up, trying to paint him as a Dean copycat, the best they come up with is that Kerry supported the president's decision to disarm Saddam but that he wished there had been more use of diplomacy. Pretty much exactly what he says in most of the clips.

This is what scares me about Kerry. The fight against islamic extremism is more important than budget deficits or education funding.


Yes and no. More to the point, budget deficits are very important to our ability to exist, and fighting terrorism in such a poor manner does nothing to improve our chances.

Its a fight over our right to exist. It is truly disgusting, to me, to see a politican willing to change their position on this all important topic based solely on what will more likely get them elected. This is not the type of leadership that we need at this moment in time.



Not that Kerry has done what you claim, but Bush is certainly not the kind of leadership needed either.

Do you really think invading a country on false claims is going to lessen anti US sentiment among Islamic people?

What about doing nothing while raw sewage flows into the water supply of most of the country? ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5898089/ )

Conditions in Iraq are poor. Very poor. We are an invading nation, without even just cause or worldwide support. It gives extremists every bit of ammunition they need to paint a very vivid picture of us as the "Great Satan."

It's no secret that in impoverished areas there is more likelyhood of people turning to crime. There is no difference with terrorism.

You want to stamp out extremism? Try working to improve the lives of people over there rather than bombing their houses and then never fixing them.


Bush has not done a good job on the war against Islamic extremism, but he has been adequate. There have been no major attacks on US soil since 9/11.



Pure propaganda. Terrorists attack on their own schedule, not on ours. How long before 9/11 was the last major terrorist attack? I remember hearing over 6 years once... maybe even longer. By that reasoning Clinton did a great job of stamping out terrorism! Oh wait, then there was that 9/11 thing. Maybe they just didn't have anything scheduled in the interim...

Say what you will about Iraq, I am happy that the fighting is going on over there and that the Arab fighters rushing into Iraq are not currently rushing into JFK airport. And since, for me, this is the only topic that matters, I will vote for Bush.



Is this your idea of keeping the terrorists all tied up making attacks in Iraq?

Al-qaeda is still active, still making attacks and funding other terrorists.

I know I saw an article about one a week or two ago, but can't find it. (Seriously, try searcing for one thing with al-qaeda in it... it's like searching for a non-pornographic article about sex!)

Anyways, I did come across this interesting little editorial from a German paper:

"The terrorists' driving force was hatred... hatred of freedom. What has happened since then? In the USA the patriot act has restricted civil liberties; a detention centre was built that is a mockery of democratic principles, and a war was begun on grounds that before 11 September no one would have accepted... Fear is useful. But it must not make us blind or hysterical. The world has become less free since 11 September 2001; that is unfortunately a victory for the terrorists.
Germany's Der Tagesspiegel" - commentary by Harald Martenstein -


You have been succesfully frightened by GOP propaganda into voting for Bush. Yes, they have used fear to coerce you into a specific action. I think there's even a word for doing that...

You are seriously kidding yourself if you think America is safer when most of Europe and the Middle East now has reason to hate America.[/url]
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:57 pm

"A word for the foolish Bush.

We know that you live in the worst days of your life in fear of death squads which spoilt your world and we are very keen that you do not lose in the forthcoming elections as we know very well that any big attack can bring down your government and this is what we do not want.

We cannot get anyone who is more foolish than you, who uses force instead of wisdom and diplomacy.

Your stupidity and religious extremism is what we want as our people will not awaken from their deep sleep except when there is an enemy..." - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3523804.stm


A little excerpt of a letter from the people who perpetrated the bombing in Madrid, claiming to act on behalf of Al Qaeda. But yeah, Bush has made us all safer...
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:10 pm

So what exactly has Kerry done that makes you want to vote for him. All I keep hearing (and the same goes for the majority of the democrat party) is why you don't like Bush, while avoiding to say what Kerry's plans are. Even Kerry just says that he would've made the right or differant choices, without saying what those are, and avoiding the whole hindsight is 20/20 thing.

I have nothing wrong with people making educated choices on voting, but I've seen too much of the 'anybody but Bush' crowd, which I view as as extremely simplistic, idiotic, and uneducated point of view.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:50 pm

rylan wrote:So what exactly has Kerry done that makes you want to vote for him. All I keep hearing (and the same goes for the majority of the democrat party) is why you don't like Bush, while avoiding to say what Kerry's plans are. Even Kerry just says that he would've made the right or differant choices, without saying what those are, and avoiding the whole hindsight is 20/20 thing.


Bush is no better. All he does is say 9/11, Saddam, Kerry Flip-flops.

No discussion of the issues from him, just a few vague promises.
What would Kerry have done differently? There's a nice long letter at the top of the page, read it.

He'd have given weapons inspectors more time, tried more diplomatic options, had a solid plan for rebuilding Iraq and not be giving Haliburton a blank check in the process.

I have nothing wrong with people making educated choices on voting, but I've seen too much of the 'anybody but Bush' crowd, which I view as as extremely simplistic, idiotic, and uneducated point of view.


Why?

If you run a business and you have an employee who does a poor job you would fire him, wouldn't you? This is no different. Bush has had 4 years to be a good president, and hasn't managed it once so far. Unfulfilled promises, lost jobs, squandered surplus, squandered international goodwill. You ask what Kerry has done, I ask what Bush has done that's good.

He deserves to be fired. If anyone else had a decent shot against him, then maybe that wouldn't be the mantra of Kerry supporters. The fact is that many people don't need to look further into things. They simply disagree with Bush's policies and behavior so far THAT strongly. It would be highly, highly irresponsible to let someone be reelected if you disagree that strongly with him



I don't know much about what Kerry has done. But I do know that his plans for the future sound better than Pres. Bush's.

Education:

Kerry intends to ensure teachers get better training, and that teachers who don't belong in the classroom do not remain in the classroom. He wants to create programs for students to remain in school later, so that fewer go home to empty homes.

To me getting better teachers in the classroom sounds like a great idea. Half the teachers in my high school shouldn't have still been teaching. One of them would simply sit down, tell the class a page number and then let them read for the rest of the class. Providing after school activities for students is also a great idea with so many families having both parents work these days. They can get help with homework rather than going home and getting in trouble the way me and my friends did.


Economy:

He wants to get rid of tax breaks which encourage companies to hire overseas and creat tax incentives for companies to create domestic jobs. He also wants to raise taxes on people in the upper income brackets to help pay for current/future government spending while lowering it on middle class families to encourage spending.

In my opinion this has a better chance of actually increasing the number of jobs in this country than any other plan I have heard lately. We ARE a consumer driven economy, so letting middle class people (consumers) have a little extra money should help move things along.

Trickle down economics doesn't work!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sesexe
Sojourner
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 5:13 am

Postby Sesexe » Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:47 am

Sarvis wrote:Even if he IS just changing his mind to get more votes there is nothing wrong with that. Politicians are supposed to represent the people. If the majority of citizens think an idea is bad, a politician SHOULD back off on it. Otherwise he is no longer representing the will of the people.


I thought that was an excellent comment. I'd like to think the politicians are here to represent us. I'd also like to think the president of the united states represents more then 50% of the population. It's a shame that when George W. Bush was elected, he didn't. I am uncertain how much of the population he now feels he represents.

Someone on here posted this link before, but feel it could use a re-posting:
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/bush/

Ya know. You're right Mr./Mrs. Bush supporter. Bush doesn't flip flop. He just says one thing and does the complete oppossite.

Kthnxbye
Asup group-says 'who needs sex ed when you got sesexe.'

Targsk group-says 'sexedse'

mount dragon

You climb on and ride Tocx'enth'orix, the elder black dragon.

You have learned something new about mount!
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:19 am

Sesexe wrote:Someone on here posted this link before, but feel it could use a re-posting:
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/bush/


*snicker* That was me. Kept forgetting to repost it in this thread though... so thanks. :)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:42 am

I think Kerry is right on some issues and wrong on others, but even if I thought Kerry was a complete moron and completely wrong, why would I vote for anyone else if I disliked nearly everything GWB did as president?

What spectacular action or platform was GWB running on? Many people didn't like Al Gore, but we didn't throw them into the "Anything but Gore" group. There were specific ideological differences in issues like the environment, bringing religion into government, and the tax system.

It's the same with this race. If there was a different member of the GOP who hadn't followed through with the same policies that Bush has done, I might be voting for him, but there isn't. No point in being partisaned to the point of being retarded, but I don't like what Bush has done.

So, my options are vote for a guy who may suck or vote for a I guy I know sucks. Why does me choosing the first option seem like a bad idea? I don't want the guy I know who sucks to be in office again. Why would I not vote for Kerry?
rylan
Sojourner
Posts: 2903
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Hudson, MA

Postby rylan » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:51 am

I'm curious... tell me how raising taxes on anyone is a good thing. It reduces their disposable income. Not to mention that the so called "wealthy" already pay over 90% of the income tax, and you want to make them pay more? Guess what, its those people who create jobs and own small buisnesses and you want tax them more.

And again I see postings making fun of Bush or saying what he did wrong, with little to nothing about what Kerry has done during his Senate tenure. Oh boy Kerry wants to make teachers get better training... and how exactly is he going to pay for that? Oh yeah, by raising more taxes... just like his lovely idea of government healthcare. Don't forget he is going to magically get other countries like France and Germany to send troops to Iraq to help when he is elected too!
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:14 am

Here's the problem with keeping low taxes: It raises the deficit.

Here's another issue: By keeping moderate level of taxation on the upper classes, you can afford to pay for infrastucture and welfare programs that help keep society moving smoothly. If you look at historitcal periods where taxes get too low, it allows the natural tendency of capitalism to funnel money upwards to get out of control. The poor become more poor and the rich become more rich at a rate which leads to unnecessarily high unemployment rates and discontent. The disposable income part is correct. However, calling for an increase on taxes for groups that are more "crunched" on their disposable income figures doesn't make any sense.

When people like Hannity talk about taxes they always say "THEY WANT TO TAKE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY." The odds are that we only want to take a very small portion more of your hard earned money. It's easier and more efficient to take it from the top. They have much more disposable income and it would help discourage the practice of excessive wealth building. Then someone will come back with "Then there's no incentive to be rich!" .... I'll let you ponder that one.

Now, people come out with "Those poor poor rich people." Yes. I admit the rich will suffer some when taxed more heavily. Luxury goods consumption will lower:( Still, I bet we could convince them to take one for the team if we could explain that they'd probably get some of it back. That's the best part about a circular model economy. If they're invested in some industry that produces more necessary goods (I'm pretty sure a TV is considered necessary now), they'll get it back in increased purchases. Plus, they have the added bonus of managing to increase their product life line and revenues without having to think of a new product to create them. That's always one problem I've had with supply side econ. It doesn't seem to take in changes in productivity, education, or the never ending need of ideas that people will have to come up with to support it.

So, ignoring all this mumbo jumbo, the problem is that presidents, especially when in tough financial positions, love to spend assloads of money. You cut taxes, you spend a ton, you screw up my future. I know it's a selfish thing to do to ask the wealthier people to tone down their living style a little bit so I don't have to pay for their current luxury, but I don't mind asking.

All presidents will spend as much as they can because there is a multiplier effect in society that shows good GDP growth when the government spends money (more so than when retained through tax cuts). It makes sense for them to do so because it makes them look successful. I just want someone to stand up and say "Hey, i'm gonna pay for some of my spending so you don't have to make up for it in the future."

And that's a brief explanation of why I believe in moderate taxation over light taxation.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:22 am

Actually, smart rich people pay very little in taxes as a total percentage of their income. There are many ways for those with wealth to earn tax free, tax deferred and tax advantaged money from investments. The people that get taxed are not the super rich who can avoid taxes, but the working rich, folks that make $100,000 to 300,000. While this may look like a large income, in reality, it is not because of high cost of living in most areas in which you can earn a high living.

Therefore, you are not taking from the lazy, but from the hard working entrepeneurs who create jobs and businesses. Making a good living by creating a business is not something to penalize with high taxes, but to celebrate.

The Laffer curve is a good example of the fundamental arguement over taxes. Most conservatives believe the government takes too much of individual's income away in taxes. This money is then not available to be reinvested into the economy. From the liberal point of view, not even taxes are collected, so that money can not be spent to help the poor. The question becomes are the poor a good investment?
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:39 am

That's a good point and it's something I'm looking into.

The wealthy avoiding taxes shows how much we need to adjust the tax law.

Anyway, I'm looking at an idea of diminishing returns in terms of tax cuts to the top 10% and the lower 20% of the economy, distribution of wealth downward and the best way to do so (I've always thought work programs were the best method, but they'll have to be set up by a good contractor and simply be funded by the government to get the best effects OR more efficient relocation programs in terms of welfare, get people out of a bad environment and to a place with jobs taht they can raise the family and work so they don't just slowly die in the system), and how best to invest back into the middle class.

I'm having a lot of trouble finding research on the topics, so I'm thinking about just doing it myself.

Rylan, what is your classification of "wealthy" and where did you get that stat? I'm looking for it and I can't find anything that agrees with you. They paid less than 90% before the cuts and they received a greater portion of the cuts than the lower classes.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:41 am

Oh and the poor being a good investment is an interesting concept. It can be argued different ways, but I rely on the take that they tend to spend more of their income as they get it. In other words, they can have their cake and reinvest it back into the economy too. It will just towards more lower end goods than would be the case if the money was not given to them.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:52 am

rylan wrote:I'm curious... tell me how raising taxes on anyone is a good thing.


When you need extra money to pay for the programs/wars you are enacting?

I mean, you CAN spend money you don't have. I have experience with that personally, in fact. I'll be living like a pauper for the next couple years in order to pay off that debt, and that's only if I'm lucky enough to find a stable job paying at least $8/hr.

The government is going to have to pay this money sometime, the Republicans are just pushing the payments off onto our kids and grandkids.

I might, MIGHT be able to accept your argument here if Republicans kept their spending down like they claim to... instead they just borrow and spend.

In either case there are various social programs, which provide several benefits to everyone. Taxes are necessary for this. You can make the simpleton's argument of "taxes are bad, m'kay" all you want, but until you actually analyze the benefits to society of the programs those taxes pay for you are just being greedy and harboring an extrremely simplistic, idiotic and uneducated point of view.

Here's a question for you though: How come whenever Republicans talk about lowering taxes they want to cut education, health care and welfare rather than the military, which is the largest single portion of our budget and far larger than any other nation on earth needs to defend itself?

You want lower taxes, stop buying so much military equipment that we don't really need.

It reduces their disposable income.


Disposable income. That's pretty funny. We're talking about the wealthy here. They don't need to budget for food and gas, they pay accountants to do it for them. Disposable income to Bill Gates is every penny he makes, because even if he spent it all today he'd be rich again tomorrow.

I'm sorry, I just don't envision someone making $200K a year agonizing over whether or not they can afford an extra case of soda for the weak, or any other purchase for that matter. The money they recieved from Bush's tax cuts, while being much larger than what average middle class American's got, probably went into some foreign account to gather interest. Maybe they would have invested it, but the economy was in bad shape which probably made most investments risky. You see, large numbers of people need to start spending money before the economy starts picking up.

A few people spending large amounts of cash doesn't really have the same
effect.

Not to mention that the so called "wealthy" already pay over 90% of the income tax, and you want to make them pay more? Guess what, its those people who create jobs and own small buisnesses and you want tax them more.


If you were in any way correct, why did the Bush tax cut not creat jobs?

Aside from the fact that jobs are created with business finances and we are taking about personal finances, no one is going to create a job if there is not enough demand for their product. Guess what creates demand for a product? That's right, lots of people with extra spending money.

And again I see postings making fun of Bush or saying what he did wrong, with little to nothing about what Kerry has done during his Senate tenure.


Ugh. What's your point? Sorry, I don't happen to have a Senate record sheet of all Kerry's actions on hand. Tell you what, you are so sure he did absolutely nothing? Provide us with the records that demonstrate this is true.

Again, even if it WERE true, doing nothing would be a large step up from what Bush is doing to the country.

Oh boy Kerry wants to make teachers get better training... and how exactly is he going to pay for that?


How is Bush going to pay for his record levels of education funding? Oh right, deficit. Yeah, that's good... because you know we never actually pay for that!

Oh yeah, by raising more taxes... just like his lovely idea of government healthcare. Don't forget he is going to magically get other countries like France and Germany to send troops to Iraq to help when he is elected too!


You're right, healthy workers are more productive! Who needs that!?!?

Getting France and Germany back on board is certainly going to be difficult, thanks in large part to how Bush has alienated half the damn world!



You keep asking us to come up with things Kerry has done. Can you name anything good Bush has done?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:03 am

I just bought a new t-shirt today: http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a342&style=a&color=32&size=3%3A+CHOOSE+A+SIZE and will be wearing it proudly.

And, some humor for this stuffy subject:

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered
altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him,
"Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet
him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air
balloon approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet
above sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude
and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically
correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I'm
still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're
going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air.
You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect
ME to solve your problem. You're in EXACTLY the same position you
were in before we met, but somehow now, it's MY fault.


And the best one:
A Father-Daughter Talk

One time there was a young teenage girl that was about to finish her
first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and her father was a rather staunch Republican. One day
she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to programs like welfare and other government entitlement like programs.

He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school. She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to
study all the time, never had time to go out and party and often went sleepless because of all the studying. She didn't have any time for
boyfriends and didn't really have many friends because of all the studying.

He then asked how her friend Mary, that was attending the same college, was doing. She replied that she was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied. Was very popular on campus and was at parties
all the time. She wouldn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

He then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend that
only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA. The daughter fired back and said "that wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and my friend has done nothing." The father smiled and said: "Welcome to the Republican Party."


Btw, in case you couldn't tell, I'l be voting for Bush. Some people are saying that they'll vote for whomever is "not bush" and has a chance of winning. I, on the other hand am voting for anyone who is not John "Hanoi" Kerry that has a chance of winning, and that man is George W. Bush.
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv
*~~~~~~~~~~*
"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Postby kwirl » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:06 am

The original intent of this post was mostly to share Kerry's platform with people who may be relying on the local news channels to keep them up to speed.

To me the simple matter boils down to the fact that George Bush made some decisions that have damaged our nation, in terms of value and safety.

If the US of A was a corporation, and I sat on the board of directors, I sure as shit would be demanding mister dubyah step down or be exorcised from within. Not only has he damaged our country, he actually boasts that he plans on driving our country further down the road of degradation.

What an ass.
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:09 am

I wish I lived on the same earth that people who believe rich people always get what they deserve live on. Would make life so much more simple.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:27 am

First, let's tackle the deficit problem.

In times of war, recession, or poor economic growth, you want to run a deficit. We tried once before to save our way to prosperity and it gave us the Great Depression. You need to keep money circulating in the economy especially in investments by individuals and businesses. In addition, if people (individuals and businesses) stop spending, the economy grinds to a halt and you'll get to see deflation (nasty) like you did in the 30's.

Is the deficit a problem? Not really, we ran one in the 80's through our military build up. Also, by cutting taxes, we ignited the fires of capitalism in the country. This resulted in growing our way out of the deficit in the 90's. Think about it, do you borrow money to buy a house or do you wait until you have enough cash to buy it?

In absolute dollars, the deficit is the largest ever, but as a percentage of GDP, it is pretty tame. We're running about 4 to 5% of GDP right now. Back during WWII, it was over 25% deficit to GDP. We'll be fine. Also, it is extremely cheap to borrow right now. The economy is better because individuals have money to spend rather than giving it to the goverment. The risk is that government borrowing competes against business and individual borrowing, but so far this isn't happening at all as shown by interest rates.

Worrying about the deficit is a red herring by folks that simply don't know.
Dlur
Sojourner
Posts: 379
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Postby Dlur » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:34 am

Odd that when Clinton was in office the unemployment rate was 5.6% and that was good. Now, Bush is in office and the unemployment rate is 5.5%(better) and everyone and their mom is bitching about the economy and jobs. Democrat Hypocrits.

See Article: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/6/84540.shtml

Also note this article from CNN Money today: http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/21/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm?cnn=yes that states that the job market is gaining still, and salaries are up across the board on average.

Also, Not to belabor a point, but does anyone really believe that Libya, a long-time sponsor of terrorism, would have volunteered to eradicate its weapons of mass destruction under a Democrat president?
Ghimok|Dlur|Emeslan|Ili|Zinse|Teniv

*~~~~~~~~~~*

"Censorship is telling a man he can't eat a steak just because a baby can't chew it." - Mark Twain
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:35 am

Let's talk about Republicans cutting social programs. The dirty secret is that no one actually cuts spending. They talk about cutting the rate of growth of spending in that area. Big difference.

You can not just throw money at Health Care, Education, and other social programs. What's that going to solve? We need teacher to be responsible for teaching kids. Instead we have teacher unions trying to prevent teachers being held responsible for their students' education.

Health care? You think the answer is to throw money at it? First, we subsidize the rest of the world's prescriptions. The pharm companies get most of their profits from the US. We need to make sure the pharms can spread out their profit generation to not just the US but the world. If you take away profit, you take away a company's or individual's rest for doing things. Communist is a failed economic idea better consigned to the graveyard of history.

Also, if the goverment does health care, you can be sure it will be an HMO type system and that sucks. People work hard at jobs partly to get good health care. Also, you want to talk about costs? How about lawyers suing various health care sectors? You'd need tort reform to cap law suits.

Also, to lower costs, you have to pay doctors and nurses less. This will result in fewer doctors and nurses just at the time more people would demand more health care if it was free. That's bad news and leads to shortages in long wait times.

Are there problems in the current system? Sure, but only you'd have to be pretty superficial to say that the answer is to just have the government run it.
Imis9
Sojourner
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:26 am
Location: DC Area

Postby Imis9 » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:41 am

Finally, if you don't see how folks making $200k aren't rich, then you simply haven't made that. Folks in this range have house payments in the $2,000 to $3,500 range monthly. Most of these people are just a job loss away from lossing everything. They aren't trying to afford a can of soda. They are trying to afford their kid's college. They are trying to repay their student loans for masters and doctorates. They are paying for insurance and property taxes. Also, in this income range they are losing roughly a third to federal taxes, and another 5 to 10 % to state and local taxes.

Remember what I said earlier. Smart super rich folks don't pay taxes because they have the ability to invest in things which prevent taxes. It is real wage earners that simply can't avoid taxes.

Also, these are folks buying homes with ARM's and even interest only mortgages to try to afford the home just decently close to their work. You want to see a disaster, let the housing market fall apart. Alot of these folks will be "upside down" in their homes and then you'll see a real mess.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:52 am

Dlur wrote:Odd that when Clinton was in office the unemployment rate was 5.6% and that was good. Now, Bush is in office and the unemployment rate is 5.5%(better) and everyone and their mom is bitching about the economy and jobs. Democrat Hypocrits.

See Article: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/8/6/84540.shtml

Also note this article from CNN Money today: http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/21/pf/college/starting_salaries/index.htm?cnn=yes that states that the job market is gaining still, and salaries are up across the board on average.

Also, Not to belabor a point, but does anyone really believe that Libya, a long-time sponsor of terrorism, would have volunteered to eradicate its weapons of mass destruction under a Democrat president?


It's all a matter of perspective. Clinton's 5.6% was DOWN from previous levels, and kept getting lower until it was below 4%. 3.8% if I remember correctly.

Bush started at 3.8% and now it's [i]up]/i] to 5.6%. Is that really so hard for you to understand?

Do I also need to go into the reclassification of McDonald's jobs as Manufacturing, how wages may be higher but have risen slower than the rate of inflation, or how people falling off the unemployment rolls because their benefits run out skew the numbers slightly?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Sep 23, 2004 4:56 am

Dlur wrote:I just bought a new t-shirt today: http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a342&style=a&color=32&size=3%3A+CHOOSE+A+SIZE and will be wearing it proudly.

And, some humor for this stuffy subject:
*snip*

Btw, in case you couldn't tell, I'l be voting for Bush. Some people are saying that they'll vote for whomever is "not bush" and has a chance of winning. I, on the other hand am voting for anyone who is not John "Hanoi" Kerry that has a chance of winning, and that man is George W. Bush.



I love how the first one is a modification of an old software engineering joke. They must have had to change it to politics when all the software engineering jobs got moved to India, eh? ;)

I hate that second joke. It isn't at all funny. I know, you republicans like to believe that everyone who works their ass off succeeds and everyone who doesn't fails. That's just not true though. There are many people who work hard every day of their lives and get nowhere. Rewrite that joke with Mary working a full time job so that she can pay tuition, then try to tell it with a straight face!


Actually, in the original version Bush could have played the role of Mary very well doesn't he? Good thing he's Born Again! Otherwise he'd still be a wastrel...

If you hate Kerry that much, vote for an Independant candidate. At least then your vote will accomplish something other than screwing over the country!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Mitharx
Sojourner
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:01 am
Location: St. Louis, MO, 63129

Postby Mitharx » Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:01 am

I'm not talking about the ones making 200k per year. There are people making far more than that. I'm talking about them.

Running deficits is important during times of recession and war. There are ways to cut the severity of the impact of the deficit without completely cutting the deficit. It's not an all or nothing kind of thing. Building a larger than necessary deficit and then acting as if it's something that will never need to be addressed is irresponsible. Still, we do agree that it is inexpensive to do so right now. Also, why would it bring the economy to a crashing halt? We're letting the people who spend a much higher portion of their disposable income keep their money so they can spend it. Those who tend to stick to wealth creation would be more taxed.

If you believe in basic economics then you should believe that we need strong funding to pay for our teachers. There are important social issue that need to be addressed in order for education to get to peak performance, but baring the state steping into parenting, getting good teachers is the best we can do.

Health care is problematic. Universal health care is a possibility, but highly improbable. Most people seem not to want it and the companies will do all they can to not allow it. Reform in health insurance (and the entire insurance industry) should be a key issue. Also, the last subscription bill was apparently a joke in terms of helping people.

"Also, by cutting taxes, we ignited the fires of capitalism in the country."

That's an odd statement. Still, I'll give it to you and add that it "ignites the fires" less than government spending does. If you wanna make a purely economic statement, that's cool. If you want to get into the ethics of the situation then we have to jump to a new realm. I can't tell which side of the argument this statement would lay on.

As for the unemployment rate, it has many major economists confused. The levels of employment are not at all matching up with the levels of the newly employed. There are issues of classifications of social security disability unemployment (started by clinton) and issues of people not looking for work or being highly underemployed. The statistic by itself says very little.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:27 am

Imis9 wrote:Actually, smart rich people pay very little in taxes as a total percentage of their income. There are many ways for those with wealth to earn tax free, tax deferred and tax advantaged money from investments. The people that get taxed are not the super rich who can avoid taxes, but the working rich, folks that make $100,000 to 300,000. While this may look like a large income, in reality, it is not because of high cost of living in most areas in which you can earn a high living.

Therefore, you are not taking from the lazy, but from the hard working entrepeneurs who create jobs and businesses. Making a good living by creating a business is not something to penalize with high taxes, but to celebrate.

The Laffer curve is a good example of the fundamental arguement over taxes. Most conservatives believe the government takes too much of individual's income away in taxes. This money is then not available to be reinvested into the economy. From the liberal point of view, not even taxes are collected, so that money can not be spent to help the poor. The question becomes are the poor a good investment?


This only means we need to close tax loopholes for the rich.

Again, however, there are plenty of programs from which spending could be cut without abandoning the poor people in our country. Unless, of course, you want poverty to increase (which it has under Bush) and result in more crime.

You need to keep money circulating in the economy especially in investments by individuals and businesses. In addition, if people (individuals and businesses) stop spending, the economy grinds to a halt and you'll get to see deflation (nasty) like you did in the 30's.


Can you explain why giving money to the wealthy spurs spending?

Wealthy people invest their money, but very few are willing to invest in ANYTHING duringa recession. They wait until they see the first signs of recovery, THEN invest and reap the profit because they invested at the lowest possible price. Tax breaks to the wealthy are not going to reverse a recession, though there would be some logic to it once the recession was starting to reverse already.

In other words, it seems like a good strategy would have been to give heavy tax cuts to the middle class, who does the most consumer spending, at first. Then when the recession started to reverse give some tax cuts to the wealthier people as incentive to invest. Instead, Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy at a time when they would be unwilling to invest.

Ask anyone who runs a company which provides business services, they will tell you than when a recession is occuring they start seeing less business. Companies are not willing to spend money on new projects if they are not sure consumers will be there to spend the money!


The dirty secret is that no one actually cuts spending.


"President Bush attempted, in his first year in office, to eliminate 100 of OSHA's jobs and to cut the funding for its standards-setting section by 8 percent. With its current staff, OSHA can only visit about 2 percent of the nation's workplaces each year." - http://mcsweeneys.net/links/bush/ (Day 101)

"Speaking to a crowd of about 1,000 in Albuquerque, Bush said of the program, "Doesn't it make sense to have public policy aimed at helping people own their own home? I can't think of a better use of resources." Bush's proposed budget, however, reduces the Indian Housing and Guarantee Fund's funding from $5.3 million to $1 million, and seeks the return of $33 million in additional funds." - Day 98 on the same site

I could probably find more...

Maybe you meant no one but Bush?

You can not just throw money at Health Care, Education, and other social programs. What's that going to solve?


That's Bush's plan for education! Record levels of funding and some kind of voucher so that all the students in a bad school can go overcrowd a good school pretty much make up his entire pre-collegiate education plan.

We need teacher to be responsible for teaching kids. Instead we have teacher unions trying to prevent teachers being held responsible for their students' education.


Oddly enough, that's Kerry's plan!

Health care? You think the answer is to throw money at it? First, we subsidize the rest of the world's prescriptions. The pharm companies get most of their profits from the US. We need to make sure the pharms can spread out their profit generation to not just the US but the world. If you take away profit, you take away a company's or individual's rest for doing things. Communist is a failed economic idea better consigned to the graveyard of history.


Seems to be working in Canada, and several European countries...

Bush's plan is no better. He wants people to have a special savings account for it, which means poor people will STILL not be able to afford health care and money will STILL not be going into the economy. But you know, at least Bush isn't spending money on it!

Also, to lower costs, you have to pay doctors and nurses less.


Or you could, you know, lower the outrageous prices of drugs and medical equipment...

Finally, if you don't see how folks making $200k aren't rich, then you simply haven't made that. Folks in this range have house payments in the $2,000 to $3,500 range monthly. Most of these people are just a job loss away from lossing everything.


Funny thing is there's a lot of poor people who are one job loss away from losing their homes, except for the minor difference of holding down two or three jobs at a time to even afford what they have!

Sounds to me like your wealthy people are simply not living within their means. I mean, that's what Republicans say whenever poor people complain about how hard it is to survive right?

I'll agree that the burden shouldn't be shifted so much onto this crowd though. IT should be shifted, rather, to the crowd with enough cash and flexibility to avoid taxes alltogether.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ashod
Sojourner
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Sebring ,FL,US

Postby Ashod » Thu Sep 23, 2004 5:41 am

I don't know about the rest of you, but I notice a trend in american civilization. First we do what we want for example.. For a decade people ate at fast food restraunts and they were the trend of americans everywhere. The became a food staple and the fast food chain registers went cha ching! The people started to get fat and many health problems occured. A select few started to inform the populace of this problem and a huge title wave of Jenny Craigs emerged. People begain to sign up and visit the gym. Many bad habits were dropped that were deemed cool and hip.

I could go on and on with this but my point is that this country is a fad based country. I am not sure of the % but I would bet that it is rather high in that most of these fads are channeled through the american media.

In relation to this topic, American Presidents seem to become part of this trend. Now this isn't pointed at anyone here posting, but you are just a minute percentage of the populace. To be honest if you really think about if i try to talk to the people that I am generally surounded by and interact with daily about political and american problems, most of them are ither do not care, not informed, or would rather avoid the topic. There is however a small handful of people who do know about what is going on to some degree. But when I try to talk to them about these things there is so much false and bad information passing that nothing really gets accomplished and both people walk away unhappy because both think that they know what is going on. What I am trying to say.. Is these problems that we talk about our so big and complicated that it is easy for one man to be puppeted by false information. I don't know George Bush personally, but I would say none of you do ither. I don't know Kerry.. same thing applying. It seems to me that Presidents have fallen into the trend of being just bad no matter what they do or how they do it.. Someone is not gonna like what is happening and gonna throw shit like any other monkey. I am not sure what the answer is... but I believe that american has grown beyond the control of one seat of control. It is so easy to point a finger rather than lend a supporting hand.. and what is more ironic is the fact that we! yes we! put Geoge Bush into office. It doesn't matter if you voted or not.. you still played a role in his getting into office because if you had voted he may not have made office.. anyway what I am trying to get to.. Is I have seen for the past 24 years of presidents that have been put into office get little or no real support of the people that put him there.. It is like ok... we voted you into office now it is your responsiblity to get it right.. and we don't back him up.. I don't give a shit if it is a damn monkey or not! You people need to wake up and back your president up. It is in this time.. that he needs your support most. Now... we have a fresh start to come... and a new president will be elected. You may or may not vote for him... but it is your responsibilty to work with him to make this a better country.. not sit around and point out all of his faults. How about a new trend...
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:11 am

An interesting sentiment Ashod, but _should_ we support a president who has so badly broken faith with us?

Frankly, I'd be a lot more forgiving of Pres. Bush if I thought he was simply making mistakes rather than following some hidden agenda.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Ashod
Sojourner
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Sebring ,FL,US

Postby Ashod » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:20 am

I can understand that Sarvis, and that goes hand in had with what I am saying. It seems that before a president even gets his foot in the door someone is already throwing shit out of the cage. All I am trying to say is that if people want a better country they need to get with the program of progression.. not the program of shit throwing.. I mean have you really sat back and looked at this post... Not one person stated possitive ideals as to what could help this country. From what I could see it was the same thing I see every time politics are involved. A bunch of monkeys throwing shit...
kwirl
Sojourner
Posts: 780
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Postby kwirl » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:33 am

What could help our country?

How about making health care affordable instead of a precious job perk or option for the wealthy? Have you ever watched a family you know destroyed financially when their sole provider was stricken with cancer and their health care plan refused coverage? When the outrageous costs of care and medication devoured their income, then their savings, and finally everything that they had devoted a lifetime to acquire, including the prospect of a secure future?

How about giving tax breaks to the middle class of america, the public servants who go out of their way to make the country better for everyone, regardless of race, age, class or gender? What makes it acceptable to enforce policies that punish one class over another financially, and then conceal the punishments by increasing the complexity of a tax code that becomes less efficient with each passing year?

How about we work on improving foreign relations by participating in multinational efforts to improve the quality of life for everyone in the world? How about we show respect for other cultures, lifestyles and choices besides our own? The word 'Tolerance' could go a long way towards improving our appearance in the eyes of the world.

How about we focus on building a stronger economy at home by reducing unrequisite spending in non-vital areas to encourage a speedier recovery at home? Why don't we encourage corporations to keep their jobs in America instead of sending them somewhere else, in order to take advantage of aforementioned tax code complexities.

How about we emphasize the value of education to our children by compensating teachers fairly and putting more money into the schools themselves. Lets hire more teachers, reduce crowding in the schools, and build programs that reward children for taking an interest in their own future. We know what happens when we cultivate a generation with apathy and depression, look around you at the modern generational culture. Lets try an outlook that gives children hope and the means to follow that path through their life.




I think you are wrong in saying that no one has offered any solutions or direction in this thread, its just that not everyone agrees with the changes that need to be made.
Especially the people who are currently being taken care of by the current wayward administration.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Thu Sep 23, 2004 6:46 am

Kwirl for president? ;)
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests