It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Kerry presidency?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   
It could happen. Bush Sr. only had one term.
But we ended up with 8 years of Clinton, FWIW. SUPPOSEDLY, the deficit was paid off. Although, I need HARD proof of that!!

Now we have Bush, the son. Lots of people HATE him, for whatever reasons. SUPPOSEDLY, the deficit is back to being huge??
So, John Kerry could be our next "leader"? How do you think he would/could make things better. For us, the people.

Both Bushes=scull and bones
Kerry=scull and bones
mr. Clinton=Rhodes scholar=possibly brainwashed
mrs. Clinton=told mr. Clinton what to do+how is she connected??
Sounds like samo samo to me.




posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 01:05 PM
link   
How would Kerry make things better, for us the people?

1. Raise taxes, undo Bush tax cuts. Causing a deep recession with jobless numbers through the roof.

2. Nationalize healthcare, causing quality to go down for most and costs to go up for most while demoralizing healthcare workers already swimming in paperwork.

3. Pullback on terrorism war to the point that all gains made are lost totally demoralizing military, adding to the unemployment rolls.

Ah shoot I just read this was supposed to be about what Kerry would do to improve things! let me start over..........

Can't think of a thing - how bout that!



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Well, but I think that's what would happen.

They are both bad for the country, just in different ways!



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Everything Bush has been horrorable for every facet of America. Anyone else is hope.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
Everything Bush has been horrorable for every facet of America. Anyone else is hope.


Just my opinion but I think ya got that exactly backwards.
The data available to anyone with a will to look does not support Kerry as a Hopefulprospect to lead this country



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Facts, as to eveything America circa 1999 vesus 2004 don't support that opinion, but you're welcome to have it. Skul & Bones/Illuminati/Alien conspiracies are not my bag.
This whole junior Republican thing ....... seems real familair ( since I voted for Reagan with my first vote ) & real sad atthe same time.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
BT, thanks for letting me have my opinion.
Um, you neglected to mention the false euphoria in 1999 caused by whitehouse manipulation of economic data and completly forgot the year 2000 when the dot-com crash exposed the clinton recession in all its glory - you know that same record short recession we're now coming out of because of good policy.

Of course you definetly have the right to your opinion, lets keep the facts straight.

Bush is the hopeful one here., John(blow'in in the wind) Kerry can't be trusted to give directions to go around the corner much less lead a nation.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I am still astounded to this day on how Clinton gets to take credit for the one big thing that he never did, that is run the economy well.

I always remember that it was reganomics that kicked in and put Clinton in the right place at the right time. He had to be one of the luckiest presidents there ever was. I think reganomics probably gave him his second term, for something he would have been against and was against.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Supposedly? Deficit is real, sorry if the truth hurts. I AM NOT a big fan of Kerry and in all honesty I think he is the worst among the democratic hopefuls.


2. Nationalize healthcare, causing quality to go down for most and costs to go up for most while demoralizing healthcare workers already swimming in paperwork.



Healthcare will go down hill for most Americans? Yeah, I mean take a look at England and Canada they are really struggling


30 million Americans have NO health insurance.

40 million Americans are underinsured.


Major Trends Affecting the Health Care Industry:

Continued Rise in Health Care Costs
Employers Push Health Care Costs onto Employees
Medicare Reform/Health Savings Accounts
Vast Number of Uninsured and Underinsured Americans
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Are Under the Gun
The InternetA Shift of Access to Knowledge from the Physician to the Patient
Boom in Specialty Hospitals
Shifts in Managed Care
Critical Lack of Qualified Nurses
Loss of Autonomy for Physicians
Patient's Rights
Alternate Site Care
Advanced Pharmaceuticals Use Growing While Costs Soar

www.plunkettresearch.com...

-Health insurance premiums are growing 3 times faster than wages.

-56% of employers plan to shift a greater portion of health insurance premium costs to their employees.

-In 2002 41% of employees reported paying higher deductibles and co payments, and receiving reduced benefits.

Sources: Bureau of labor statistics, US census bureau, Employment benefits research institute.

Though health insurance is one of the most important factors in assuring access to health care, gaps in coverage can create access problems even among the insured. Thirty-eight percent of insured individuals report that they or their families experienced at least one problem accessing medical services in the past year. Nearly one-fifth (18%) report that they postponed seeking medical care, 15% had a problem paying medical bills, 10% did not get a prescription drug they felt they needed, 8% were contacted by a collection agency about a medical bill, and 6% didn't get care they felt they needed.

That's 38 % of insured individuals not satisfied. That is not counting the millions that are NOT insured.


......Causing quality to go down for most. Are you kidding me? How can it get worst? And who are the "most" that you refer to? The Rich? Hardly a majority. Also health care costs has sky rocketed ALREADY. The system we have in place is a failing one. We are the ONLY industrialized country(the richest one I might add) that doesn't have a universal health plan for all its citizens. When our senor citizens need to order their medications from Canada because they can't afford to get it in their own country not only is it sad but also it's a problem.

But as long as the pharmaceutical giants fatten the pockets of our leaders and candidates you will not see change.

Sorry if I came off kinda of pissed, but it irks me when people come out and talk about things that they have no clue about. Medical care should have nothing to do with partisan politics. It should only be about what is right for it's citizens. And our current system is anything but right.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
BT, thanks for letting me have my opinion.
Um, you neglected to mention the false euphoria in 1999 caused by whitehouse manipulation of economic data and completly forgot the year 2000 when the dot-com crash exposed the clinton recession in all its glory - you know that same record short recession we're now coming out of because of good policy.

Of course you definetly have the right to your opinion, lets keep the facts straight.

Bush is the hopeful one here., John(blow'in in the wind) Kerry can't be trusted to give directions to go around the corner much less lead a nation.


And where were you in 1999? I was celebrating my sixth year in business running my own firm, having seen an economic boom chug full steam from when I started things in 1993. Given the fact that growth and expansion was crucial to our business goals, we watched the amalgam of politics/laws/social trends/business trends/markets. The prior years were spent as an IT Tech. during Reagan/Bush/Qualye. I swa those policies, I saw the outcome.
So tell me - are your opinions from life experience or are you regurgitating the Company line? Because that opinion of yours just doesn't jive with the facts.

Manipulating economic data is swearing your tax cuts will produce a million jobs; when they reall lost 3 million.
Learn your recent hstory about what Harvey Levitt proposed to stop companies from earnings restatements ( that data which the government bases it reports on ).

Reganomics? Truely one of your less that cogent statements Neo!

That's been, up until now, one of the worst atempts at economic policy in American history, but you're welcome to give it a shot up in Canada!



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
I am still astounded to this day on how Clinton gets to take credit for the one big thing that he never did, that is run the economy well.

I always remember that it was reganomics that kicked in and put Clinton in the right place at the right time. He had to be one of the luckiest presidents there ever was. I think reganomics probably gave him his second term, for something he would have been against and was against.


So called "Reagenomics" ended when Bush 41 took office and reversed on the "read my lips, no new taxes" lie. Why are conservatives so forgiving (or forgetful) on that fact? Bush 41 reversed 100% of Reagen tax policies in order to keep the government from coming to a screeching halt under the weight of the deficit.

So if ANYTHING, Bush (then Clinton) record tax increases reduced the debt. Reagen was a foot note. His own Repubican successor dismantled the voodoo.

Sheesh.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Originally posted by Bout Time
And where were you in 1999? I was celebrating my sixth year in business running my own firm, having seen an economic boom chug full steam from when I started things in 1993. Given the fact that growth and expansion was crucial to our business goals, we watched the amalgam of politics/laws/social trends/business trends/markets. The prior years were spent as an IT Tech. during Reagan/Bush/Qualye. I swa those policies, I saw the outcome.
So tell me - are your opinions from life experience or are you regurgitating the Company line? Because that opinion of yours just doesn't jive with the facts.[i/]

BT I am speaking from experience, I was/am working for a REIT that played things conservativly during the so called boom years of the 90s. Time after time in investor meetings it was brought forth how overheated the economy was at that moment - consequently my company experienced moderate growth with a steady stock price while others bought everything they could long as the money poured in from the market with soaring share prices that soon fell.

My company today is on a major expansion (150%) with a near doubling of stock price since the 2000 election
simply because the executives did not buy into the hype that was going on in the 90s.

Sadly our competitors are and have been selling off assets to prop up share price because they did buy into the hype.

Personally I stayed out of the market in the later 90s based on my companys moves (smart leadership) so I did'nt lose anything - since the clinton crash bottomed I am putting all spare money into investments and have done quite well, old saying, buy low sell high!

Quoting BT again;
"Manipulating economic data is swearing your tax cuts will produce a million jobs; when they reall lost 3 million".

This statisic is skewed because it is only non-farm jobs from employers that have been in operating more than three years. It excludes new start-ups and of course farm labor. There is a net gain somewhere around 300,000 jobs and if all start-ups are counted its over a million.

I feel real bad that you counted on the false economy of the clinton years to make your company a going concern, maybe if a stable administration is re-elected you can give it another try.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Aliceinwonderland originally wrote;
"Sorry if I came off kinda of pissed, but it irks me when people come out and talk about things that they have no clue about. Medical care should have nothing to do with partisan politics. It should only be about what is right for it's citizens. And our current system is anything but right".

I agree - partisan politics has no part in healthcare, our current system is anything but right - since government got involved and has really made a mess of things

Its not a solution that government can fix when they are the root of the problem.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

I feel real bad that you counted on the false economy of the clinton years to make your company a going concern, maybe if a stable administration is re-elected you can give it another try.


I feel worse for any fool that didn't get rich on IPO's in the 90's, then do what everyone else did and sell off taking profits when Bush was elected. Thus the "crash"... it was the first time in history the stock market worked for the people, not the other way around. If you didn't make money in the 90's you weren't awake. If you stayed in the stock market and lost under Bush, you're a fool.

I, like BT, rode the wave and started a company in a 4,000 plus entity industry and rose to #69 in the first 3 years. I sold out before 1999 because I could. You think entrepreneurs had a chance under Reagen or do now under Bush? No way. I'd gladly PAY for another Clinton economy. I can't afford Bush tax cuts. I spent my "refund" out on dinner the night I got it.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by Phoenix

I feel real bad that you counted on the false economy of the clinton years to make your company a going concern, maybe if a stable administration is re-elected you can give it another try.


I feel worse for any fool that didn't get rich on IPO's in the 90's, then do what everyone else did and sell off taking profits when Bush was elected. Thus the "crash"... it was the first time in history the stock market worked for the people, not the other way around. If you didn't make money in the 90's you weren't awake. If you stayed in the stock market and lost under Bush, you're a fool.

I, like BT, rode the wave and started a company in a 4,000 plus entity industry and rose to #69 in the first 3 years. I sold out before 1999 because I could. You think entrepreneurs had a chance under Reagen or do now under Bush? No way. I'd gladly PAY for another Clinton economy. I can't afford Bush tax cuts. I spent my "refund" out on dinner the night I got it.


I make money the legitimate way, not by stealing the sweat off other people backs by basically ripping off those people you refer to as fools. Its kinda like old terry and global crossing isnt it - talk the social talk but don't walk it.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix
I make money the legitimate way...


I thought you were Republican.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by Phoenix
I make money the legitimate way...


I thought you were Republican.


Yea thats right, an honest one. Rant I mean no offence in my postings but my experience of democratic leadership is diametrically opposed to yours and BTs, thats ok because others can then see the difference and make up their own minds. - Deny Ignorance!



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Kerry seems like he would be the type to have more personal bodyguards around him at all times, I just get this impression...George Bush is always fooling around in the public, begging to be assasinated it seems, I just imagine Kerry being more careful.

I think Kerry is topsy turvery on some policies, but any fresh face would be a nice change to Bush, I am sick of hearing him preaching, or sorry, I meant to say speaking, after all religion is to be seperated from state.

I wonder how his bill to fund more churches for his religion is coming along...

Kerry may be imperfect, but I think that he would be a lot more careful before galavanting off on crusades, leading the country into a pit. Let us hope that when/if Kerry wins, he does not go crazy with power as Bush did.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Possibly it's the vocal minorities you've experienced Phoenix, and not grown up Dems like me and BT.

I'm a Dem predominantly on social issues like abortion, gay rights and affirmative action. The main fiscal reason would be national healthcare because I believe that will save me and most employers money.

In my experience, the Republicans of late are so caught up in tax pandering they forget there are other issues, and fiscally moderate Dems that are socially progressive.

It's a missed opportunity IMO and why candidates like Edwards are gaining traction among indy's and Republicans alike. Clinton was a damn near perfect President in my mind for economics AND social issues, but the sex hypocrisy tainted him for most. As a progressive, I don't care about that. I don't care about Bush's DWI's or abortion either.

So I do walk the talk, but I'm not stupid or poor or waiting for handouts. Most Democrats aren't in MY experience. I like making money, but I can't be bought. I'm middle class, and Bush is not on my side. It's as simple as that.



posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Rant we are not that far apart, I too believe in a right to abortion, gay rights - lets save some typing here and say I believe in the rights of the individule as a whole, I rail against any program, law, group that is going to tell me what to do and how much I am going to pay for it. It is my decision whom to help and who not to. I want the government and yes business out of my pocket. I don't think its fair for a company to pay the insurance nor do I think the taxpayers should pay for these programs. The whole system should be privatized beginning with letting individuals form groups that can shop their membership to the private insurers. Yes there would be a limited need for the government to help the unemployed, disabled and persons that cannot work for legitimate reasons.

I don't see Kerry as one who would even contemplate going this direction so he's a non-starter for me. In fact he would further entrench government in my private affairs given the chance.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join