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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   

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


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


Not only does it not belong in partisan politics, it does NOT belong in government.
If gov't wasn't so busy in bed with big business, we wouldn't have so many of these issues.



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.

Regards my comment on the deficit: how do any of us know that Clinton & co paid sown the deficit in the first place? Have we seen any accounting on it? Oh, we're supposed to believe a politician???




posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Regards my comment on the deficit: how do any of us know that Clinton & co paid sown the deficit in the first place? Have we seen any accounting on it? Oh, we're supposed to believe a politician???


I was talking about the current deficit. Not how it got there or who's to blame. I responded when you said the "supposed" deficit. The deficit is real and will continue to grow until will cut down on spending and repeal some of the tax cuts given(and hence forth since it's likely to become perm) to the rich, which most people BTW don't know that it accually costs more than both the Afghan and Iraq wars COMBINED).



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Nadar is in, Bush will win!!!



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aliceinwonderland

Regards my comment on the deficit: how do any of us know that Clinton & co paid sown the deficit in the first place?


I was talking about the current deficit. Not how it got there or who's to blame. I responded when you said the "supposed" deficit. The deficit is real ...

Okay, we do agree there is a deficit.
I am saying, it never wasn't there (double negatives, I know).
Clinton never paid it down. We have no PROOF it happened.

The banking industry would not allow our government to so reduce what our "country" owes them. Debt keeps our economy going.



posted on Feb, 24 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
And representative of my experience!: up:
You even echoed one of my most typed lines while I've been here on ATS: "If you weren't making money in the 90's....."
It's also come to light that there's barely a spit of deference between Entrepreneurial Democrats & Socially Conscious Republicans - the Vast Middle, as it were.
Nothing but growth during Clinton; nothing but struggle during Bush. Facts of expereince are just that, facts. Of course, no president deserves heaps of glory or heaps of vitriol based on the economy. But, and it's a big BUT: they do set the tone. Bush is clearly big business, Clinton accounted for entrepreneurs.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
is a vote for nadar a vote for bush? i dont remember nader being blamed 4 years ago, but then again 4 years ago i wasnt paying attention to #.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
You even echoed one of my most typed lines while I've been here on ATS: "If you weren't making money in the 90's....."


And from what I could tell "If you weren't getting Lewinski'ed in the 90's too..."


Maybe it was just the perfect storm of wine, women, song and gobs of new wealth... but DAMN I miss the 90's!!!



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
So far the argument here seems to be concentrated on domestic policy.
It will be interesting to see how the rest of the world would react to a change in presidency. Without a doubt, George W Bush has to be the most unpopular US president when viewed from a foreign perspective. He is viewed with fear and loathing by what would seem to be the vast majority of the outside world.

Obviously, it is important to the US that they get the right man for domestic issues. But I get the feeling that the immediate response to a Kerry victory would be a mass sigh of relief from the rest of the world. Whether this reaction would be based on ignorance or manipulation is another story. And whether or not Kerry would later become viewed in the same way as Bush is now is another question. But there is no denying whatsoever that everywhere outside of the US has been fed an endless diet of anti-Bush media stories. This has built up to a crescendo where any Bush second term would do the US image no favours outside of it's borders.

As a non US citizen , I would like to see Bush replaced purely because of his failiure to project any semblance of positive feeling to the rest of the world. It is understandable that he is seen negatively as it is probable that whatever his foreign policies, once 911 occured, he was caught between a rock and a hard place. But viewed by the outside world population he is the worst ambassador for the US that has ever held the reigns of government.



posted on Feb, 29 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe

Both Bushes=scull and bones
Kerry=scull and bones


Thats just a college thing for priviledged kids, I dont think its a big factor.


Q

posted on Mar, 1 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   
Personally, I just don't like the man. Something about him gives me the willies. His past wishy-washiness gives me no confidence at all in his abilities to make sound legislation.

I keep hearing from Kerry "We need someone with experience to be the president". Unfortunately, we don't want someone with too much presidential experience--that's why we limit to 2 terms max. Any longer and dictatorship is risked. If palling around with 'Hanoi Jane' and taking campaign contributions from China is the kind of 'experience' he's bringing to the table, I'm quite certain he's got nothing to offer.

I'm neither a Dem or a Rep--I'm for whoever has the best representation of my interests, regardless of party affiliation. My basic interests are staying alive, so I've gotta say in that aspect I've approved of the actions taken by the current admin. All their policies don't necessarily work for me, but my opinion is worth decidedly much less if some freak terrorist had their way and made giblets outta me. Sadly, I don't see much besides Bush-bashing being offered by the dems. I see them as being weak on national defense (with some notable exceptions) and offering little else of worth.

Something I think a lot of people have forgotten is that when he was elected, Bush was running on isolationist platform. He wanted to reduce the US' meddling in world affairs, and try to concentrate on the problems at home. Almost upon arrival in office, he was hit with 9-11 and forced to make some hard, and unpopular decisions. I feel that he rose to the task and showed the backbone that was utterly lacking in the previous administration. The terrorists wanted us to cower and do nothing, which was exactly what they had been seeing as a result of their actions through the 90's. Standing up for ourselves, demanding a clear stance from other countries, and kicking some jihadi posterior made him unpopular in many countries, which in turn made many turn against him at home. These other countries aren't our friends, and they wouldn't be if Kerry takes office either. Their demeanor towards us politically would likely improve, but their intent and attitudes toward us would remain the same. They just wouldn't have Bush for their third-world piniata. Heck, they might even like Kerry better because he'd make an easier mark.

I can already hear the panties getting bunched--hold on just a minute. I'm not saying I approve of everything that's been done by this administration. To quote Clinton, "Mistakes were made...". However, I don't feel that having Kerry in office would be a solution to any of our problems.

As for the economy, the current admin inherited it. No matter who would've came into office, it would've tanked. Period. Granted, the tax-cuts were ill-afforded, but I feel that this along with other financial actions did keep us from bottoming out as badly as we easily could've. Note that the 4th quarter of last year showed the largest growth in about 20 years. What is this miraculous Kerry plan that will fix everything? Riiiight...there ISN'T one.

Actually, as long as Greenspan's around, we'll be OK. Why does this man know so much about money? Because he was around when it was invented.


Our health care system indeed needs an overhaul. I'd have to say I lean more toward a democratic/socialist system on this one. Still, health care costs money, and everything must be paid for. The money's got to come from some where. If you're not contributing enough to pay your share, then why do you expect it to be given to you? The government can't pay for everyone to have everything--if they tried, we'd all end up with nothing.

The same goes for our welfare and social security systems. I have to give credit to the Clinton admin for trying to scale back on the welfare, while at the same time while scoring serious penalties on the Bush admin for trying to allocate these already overtaxed resources to people who not only haven't contributed ANYTHING to these programs, but aren't even american citizens to boot!


Social security isn't going to be there when I'm old, unless something major is done. All the money I've paid in will have already been squandered by people who didn't. The Bush solution seems to be individual investment portfolios--401k's and the like. As most of you who have these can testify, the vast majority of people have lost their collective a$$es on these in recent years. Still, one has to plan for their own future in whatever way seems to look best, whether it be investment or squirreling your dough away in a matress. What is the Kerry solution for this? Again, I've heard of none.

The Bush admin doesn't have all the answers. But from the Kerry camp, I don't see ANY.

[Edited on 1-3-2004 by Q]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join