It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


For Third Party voters on ATS

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 02:52 PM
First of all, even though I want Buish out, is kerry a proper alternative?

For one, hes a friggin Catholic. Hes a new england style liberal. In my opinion, that makes him on par as dangerous as Bush.

For starters, i have seen his opinions and platforms. He has no plans to end this friggin war. he has no plans to bring home our troops from overseas, only close down bases here at home and whittle the military that way. His Un friendly attitude bothers me as well. Is he the lesser of two evils? No. Put him in office, and in my opinion, he will be as dangerous as Bush.

So, i shall not play a hand in it. You all can. Im not throwing away my vote. id have never voted for Kerry in the first place. Id have never voted for Bush.

This is a battle field. But siding with one evil to defeat another has a dangerous history.

Many countries sided with the Nazis because they feared the communist Russians more. We sided with the Russians because the nazis were allies of the japanese.

Obnvious, both cases of some very bad alliances, choosing between evils. i will not choose between evils, i will fight them both.

Whether Bush or Kerry come into power matters not to me. I used to think anyone but Bush would be better, but now, doesnt matter.

I shall vote the American way: free of will and devoid of strategy to promote one train of thought.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:02 PM
Oh so we should propose a law to restrict any Catholics or Christians from becomming president? Only athiests can be president now? Sorry for the cynicism, but I don't think that should be a factor in choosing the president.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:11 PM
All governments will become evil Skadi, unless you can come up with a completely different way of managing society. Power corrupts, always has and always will. So choosing between evils is necessary any time you are going to put somebody in power, they are going to serve their interests, so unless you can vote away human nature, youre going to be voting in protest for the rest of your life. But thats your choice, and your statements are valid. I will put my vote where it can make a difference in my life, right now. And although Kerry may be a catholic, he doesn't use it as a tool and I believe wont base laws on religion. But I agree, they all suck, and so would a third party if placed in power, it would be a short amount of time before they were in the pockets of special interests, everybody has a price in politics. So your best protest would be not to vote at all, because they are all inherently evil, no matter what they would have you believe.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 03:17 PM
Oh, id do a total overhaul of the system, and alot of people wouldnt like my ideas.

For starters, lobbying and campaign donations would be illegal. A set public fund for campaigns would distribute equal money to all candidates.

Bribery of an elected or other public offical would be an offense punishable by death for both parties involved.

And yes, his being a Catholic concerns me. Since Catholics tend to hold more Loyalty toward the Vatican anyway. Do I think it would affect his politics? yes. The kennedy family, after all, was funding the IRA. His religion would affect us differently, because its different from George Bush.

I dont trust anyone who subscribes to any organized religion in power. Very dangerous.

An open minded agnostic is best in my opinion.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 04:36 PM
Bribery punishable by DEATH!? I hope youre kidding, because your government would be as bad as those arab governments that deal out the death penalty like traffic tickets. We know how your government would deal with campaign financing, but what about our military? Would you strengthen it? Would you maintain our superpower status, or step down and allow China to have a superior military force? What about terrorism? How would your government handle the task of keeping us somewhat safe? What about health care? The economy? I agree, an open-minded agnostic like you or I would be the ideal spiritual stance of a candidate, but unfortunately the rest of the sheep are still in the dark ages of organized religion, theres not alot of us yet but like I said, with time, things will change. Until then, its important to advance your cause as far as you can without spinning your wheels, and my cause is getting GWB out, and if you like Bush over Kerry than you should vote for Bush. You should not sacrifice making a difference in your life, just to make a statement to yourself. But, you will do what you will do, probably not just to protest the government, but also to protest guys like me who seem to accept the way things are, but I can assure you I want change too, but I have been cursed with something called realism and I know change will not happen overnight with one election, evolution is a slow process.

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Bout Time
There has to be a policy first, no?
"record Breaking"?

Bush's policy has been to reduce taxes to put money back into the pockets of every citizen. This has been done.

A matter of perspective, no? One man's $300 extension against a following year's rebate does not equal another man's zero Dividends Tax.

First of all, talking about personal experience is a big no-no when talking about the macroeconomy; it's out of context. Second, there is a reason outsourcing occurs: cheaper labor -- and that's how the free market works. Moreover, some companies have used outsourcing to create more jobs:

" The outsourcing of prized information technology jobs overseas has created tens of thousands of new jobs in the United States, according to a recent study commissioned by the information technology industry. "

"Savings from outsourcing allowed companies to create 90,000 new jobs in 2003, with more than one in 10 of them in Silicon Valley or elsewhere in California, researchers said. The report predicts that in 2008, outsourcing will create 317,000 jobs -- 34,000 in California."

Not that you care, right?

Frankly, I care deeply, though you're new enough to not know I'm a former Republican ( sorry about that personal info protocol breach, again! ). About that ITAA, which commissioned these studies that show no empiracal data as to how they arrive at their numbers: the ITAA has an arm called ETC - the Electronic Technology Council. Their niche? E-voting machine manufacture & voter roster tabulation. You have such storied & stellar companies as Diebold, Sequioa, and ES&S....maybe you remember the 2000 voter role tabulations? Or the refusal by forward thinking legislators, nationally, to not certify their non-receipt generating kiosks? Or maybe the fact that each is headed by a Bush Pioneer level campaign contributor......even a state's GOP party Chairman? And that this is the preemminent ( = big money )group within the ITAA?
Or how about that Jack Snow, the other source of heresay in these information sources? Might Bush's Treasury Secretary be inclined to side with his boss & their benefactors? Mr. Snow presdied over a former client of mine, Sea-Land, where he did such a horrible job, he makes Bush's CEO experience seem almost competent.
Getting back to those unsupported figures, they are "forecasting" a 60K/per yr addition of IT jobs over the next 5 years....nationally......ina market of 10.5 MILLION that grows with every graduating class by the 100's of thousands. The way outsourcing works is to first identify key employees & rebadge them - everything stays the same ( with a usual decrease in pay), just now they're paid by Siemens, EDS IBM or whomever the vedor is.
Is it a "creation" of 60k jobs? In one sense, yes, the outsourced vendors headcount has increased. But in reality, the net net is that no jobs were added. The spurrious jump to pinpoint a direct line correlation between potential increases in a companies bottom line due to outsoucing with job creation for an industry, is just that - a leap of partisan inspired faith. Companies have increased their profits dramatically, while having zero or negative vector changes on employee headcount. Citing American worker productivity figures is a smokescreen. This isn't Six Sigma efficient practice in play - it's leveraging a depressed market in order to retain workers who are too scared to leave. What Architect is going to jump with both feet into a market that is paying Help Desk wages?

It seems you are just taking political slogans without actually looking at the news.

Too much news, too much CSPAN....just not the Fox & CNN sources you've been quoting. SUre, I view that material for a pulse of what's being fed to the masses, but form an opinion based on that muck? No. You seem to be a person of tremendous faith, something normal to admire. That the faith is in the Mayberry Machevellis is where the admiration loses steam. Again, growth from a point of loss that still keeps you at a net loss is nothing to quote as historic - any person of sound math skills and a smathering of economic know how would be forced to look behind the hype & to see the grand misdirection.

A key to help you? THe more official or Apple Pie sounding the name, the more partisan and whore-ish they are. Here's somthing you missed on the ITAA:

According to a recent survey by the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), unless there is a dramatic recovery in the US economy within the next year, a return to normal levels of hiring and compensation among IT workers in America is not likely to happen.
The study shows demand for IT workers is continuing to drop in the United States, even as the number of lay offs has slowed and the overall size of the IT market has stabilized at around 10.3 million workers. One of the major factors contributing to this trend is the increasing use of offshore people with management and programming expertise to do work that ends up being used in America.

So, they get paid to do two studies on the same topic....yet come to different conclusions?

[edit on 3-8-2004 by Bout Time]

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
First of all, even though I want Buish out, is kerry a proper alternative?

For one, hes a friggin Catholic. Hes a new england style liberal. In my opinion, that makes him on par as dangerous as Bush.

For starters, i have seen his opinions and platforms. He has no plans to end this friggin war. he has no plans to bring home our troops from overseas, only close down bases here at home and whittle the military that way. His Un friendly attitude bothers me as well. Is he the lesser of two evils? No. Put him in office, and in my opinion, he will be as dangerous as Bush.

Damn Elfy, a blunt & a boy might help, no?

Good to see you, I missed you!

I'm a Catholic, a Roman Catholic. Granted, weddings & funerals get me in a church exclusively, but that bulls**t about being "Papists" & bowing to the Vatican like Muslims bow to Mecca is so 1800's. You've got us confused with the bible thumpin' Bush/Ashcroft/Tom DeLay type of "Christians".
NATO & internationalizing ( = split the profits ) is a helluva an immediate way to get our troops home....the ONLY way. You think the Crony Capitalism front men for Haliburton running this war is going to do that? When they can have BILLIONS fall off the ledger sheet & just go "oops" with barely a whisper?
Frankely, I can't think past the War expereince issue on how each alternative would respect those deployed: the War hero or the AWOL hero?

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 08:02 PM
Wow, I didn't think this thread would become this big. There's been too much said for me to try to respond, so all I can say is....continue talking. Tis interesting.

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:33 AM
Personally, I'm not a republican either. I also have to disagree with your argument against the ITAA. If you look at their reports in depth (this is just the executive summary: ), they use both empirical and logical modeling of outsouring. Both to determine its current state and its future predictions. If you really think that the GOP is influencing the ITAA, that sounds more like a conspiracy theory than anything else -- which this is probably a good place for conspiracy theories. lol

With outsourcing there are predictions of job gains, and you have to look at the retroactive effects. While 102,000 local jobs may have been lost this year, from outsourcing, that is just a drop in the bucket for a current trend. Before outsourcing became a very heated issue, the dot-com-bubble had burst, in where we had lost over 300,000 IT jobs in the year 2000. To quote the report of the ITAA, "That is, 10% of all IT software and services jobs in the U.S. have disappeared since 2000, but only 2.8% of the total IT software and services jobs were lost because of offshore ITO."

Your claim about net gains are also false, again, according to the empirical data collected by the ITAA, "The overall gain is positive: an estimated 193,900 new jobs were created in 2003 and over 589,000 new jobs are expected by 2008, if offshore ITO continues. ... After accounting for the number of displaced IT software and services jobs, the net number of new jobs in 2003 was estimated to be over 90,000, and the net number of new jobs in 2008 is expected to over 317,000"

I didn't quote FOX news, but I did quote MSN and CNN. But if you really want to get to the meat of the issue, ie what they were both reporting, it is in those documents. Not much faith used there.

Your source doesn't even go on to talk about which survey was used, and obviously, if they are using the same source (the report), they are taking its claims out of context (notice how there are no direct quotes). We have been having a net gain (which it points out lower in the article), and the economy is improving (look at the GDP). In either case, there is no evidence of a net loss due to outsourcing, while there is evidence for a net gain.

Free trade of goods and services will help everyone in the long run. What the nay sayers of outsourcing are against is free trade. So much for globalization, hmm?

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Flinx
Wow, I didn't think this thread would become this big. There's been too much said for me to try to respond, so all I can say is....continue talking. Tis interesting.

Eh, no one actually responded to my post about 3rd parties. It is a little off subject now. lol

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 10:48 AM
"The spurrious jump to pinpoint a direct line correlation between potential increases in a companies bottom line due to outsoucing with job creation for an industry, is just that - a leap of partisan inspired faith."

That's my major point with their findings: somewhere around late 1998, CIO's lost out to CFO's as to headcount increases & their auspice to generate them. It was a hellacious time because bean counters care little about what technocrats care about.
So, in simpler terms, there is no way to project net new increases for the industry based on outsource figures, no matter how they're constructed. Capital expenditures has been the mover that's inspired hiring booms. Those have not had anything close to their vigor over this president's term.
When companies have put out reports ( and I've read 2 proprietary ones this week alone ) that YTD has them at 30% revenue increases with 1% employee headcount growth over the same point in 2003, I find the ITAA's findings to be a pipe dream....hooka pipe, that is!
It was the same last year & there are posts all over ATS on that subject.
As to the Republican inspiration behind ITAA: it's the ETC in that group as it's primary arm. The ETC is driven by the aforementioned companies. Diebold's CEO is also the Ohio GOP Chairman & has promised to deliver "Ohio to President Bush". 4 of the companies that make up the ETC are headed by GOP super fund raisers. Now, I will admit to a conspiritorial undertone, but it's not of my's by theirs.

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 11:11 AM
"The spurrious jump to pinpoint a direct line correlation between potential increases in a companies bottom line due to outsoucing with job creation for an industry, is just that - a leap of partisan inspired faith."

There is a correlation, and granted, no correlation is necessarily the cause of something, but there is an objective net increase of jobs -- even with outsourcing. Either way, cause or no-cause (if you want to deny the correlation), gains are being made. In your second point, you seem to change the subject from jobs to revenue. Just because a company is having more of a profit doesn't mean they should hire more, or give their employees more. Some businesses will, and some won't: but that's entirely up to them -- they own the business; we're not in some socialist utopia. With a capitalistic "profit motive" scenario, we should expect businesses to do whatever is legally possible to increase their profits.

Again, this follows with the last point of my last reply: If we deny outsourcing, then we deny free trade. And just like products we sell from the factory, we sell our labor (like it or not) -- likewise, if we want to get buyers for our labor we better either be cheaper or better than the rest.

Forcing businesses to hire or pay their employees more (which is effectively done if we tax outsourcing labor -- Kerry has suggested something like think, methinks), because of profit motive, only forces them to raise their prices for all of us. The rest of the chain is well known in economics.

posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by radardog

Originally posted by donguillermo

Objectively, you don't know what you are talking about. You are just mouthing Republican talking points.

I don't own a copy of any talking points. I'm just citing what has been floating around in the news.

No, actually, you are just repeating the mindless cheerleading of the economy of Bush and Cheney. The actual news stories show the economy is in bad shape and getting worse.

the last President to talk about the economy turning the corner was when Herbert Hoover said that prosperity was just around the corner.

So? And the last person that used "help is on the way" on a campaign is Cheney. These points are nonsensical.

What is nonsensical is your response. What does Cheney and "help is on the way" have to do with my point? Herbert Hoover was the last President to preside over a net loss of jobs. Unless, there is strong job growth in the next few months, Bush will be the first President since Hoover to see a decline in jobs during his Presidency. I think Bush's use of language similar to Hoover's to talk about the economy is a perfectly valid comment, not nonsensical.

I am aware that you can cite statistics to show the economy is in good shape.

GDP is the way the judge a nation's wealth/economy ala Adam Smith. We have had GDP gains of almost 8% in a single quater.

Yes, GDP is the best measure of where the economy has been. It tells us nothing about where the economy is right now or where it is going, because the figures are released and revised after the fact. By the way, when did GDP grow at an annual rate of 8%? I must have missed that. For the most recent quarter, GDP annual growth rate was 3%, down from previous quarters, and below a predicted 3.8%. So the annual growth rate of GDP is at 3% and declining.

Most importantly, GDP and its growth rate tells us nothing about where the economy is going. I noticed you didn't want to comment about my discussion of economic indicators which are indicative of future economic performance.

I am aware that you can cite statistics to show the economy is in good shape. I can cite many more to show it is not. Consumer spending is 2/3 of all economic activity. Consumer spending has been down two months in a row. Another leading economic indicator, new factory orders, has been down two months in a row. The stock market, a reliable leading economic indicator, is down for the year, and for Bush's entire Presidency.

After three months of good job creation, the latest month showed only 112,000 new jobs created, not enough to cover growth in the labor force.

You just glossed over the heart of my argument that the economy is not doing fine and things are not improving.

Analysis of employment statistics shows that real wages, adjusted for inflation, are declining, and that the new jobs being created pay less than the jobs that were lost.

Are you suggesting that low paying jobs are worse than no-paying jobs?

No, I am not suggesting that low-paying jobs are worse than no-paying jobs. You are trying to create a strawman argument, because you have no answer to the fact that the decline of real wages is not a sign of economic health.

Wages depend on the wage market, not the government.

Another strawman argument. I didn't say wages depend on the government. We are discussing whether the economy is in good shape and improving, remember? Since you know you have already lost that argurment, you have started throwing up smokescreens and strawman arguments.

Even after the recent good numbers on job creation, more than a million jobs have been lost since Bush became President.

It doesn't follow that they were lost because of Bush being president. Remember, the economy started showing signs of decline in late 1998, and after 9/11, all industries were hurt in some way.

Still another strawman argument. Whether the jobs were lost because Bush was President is another irrelevant smokescreen. The issue is whether or not the economy is in good shape and improving.

Contrast that with the 22 million jobs created during the eight years of the Clinton Presidency

What comes up, must come down. The "dot-com-bubble" was a moment of temporary inflation, where the nation was actually over-employed.

Temporary inflation? Inflation was quite low during the latter years of the Clinton Presidency. Please cite some actual statistics, not opinion, that the nation was over-employed during the dot-com bubble. Unemployment was at about 4%, which is usually considered full employment.

In four years, Bush has taken the federal government from a budget surplus of over $200 billion to an estimated budget deficit of $445 billion.

Yes, wars tend to cost a lot of money.

The fact that wars cost a lot of money is an irrelevant smokescreen. My point is that a budget deficit of $445 billion is a sure sign of future problems for the economy. You fail to address that point, and bring up the war. Yes, the Iraq War is part of the reason for the deficit, and Bush has to take responsibility, since he started the war. The more important reason for the deficit is Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, for which he is also responsible.

If you're going to vote for Kerry because of a deficit, I would recommend actually looking into his comments: Kerry wants to give health care to every person in the unitedstates to which he states he doesn't care if it makes the US go red.

Now you are just making things up. Please provide links to show that Kerry doesn't care if his health care plan makes the U.S. go red, to use your language.

Moreover, he wants to bring more troops to Iraq (that costs money, too).

Again, you are making things up. Please document this statement. Kerry has stated that he wants to internationalize the forces in Iraq, and bring American troops home.

After declining during the Clinton years, the national debt as a percentage of GDP is once again rising.

Clinton didn't fight a war where most of the resources were coming directly out of the US' pocket.

This time you use a smokescreen, not a strawman. My point is that the fact that the national debt as a percentage of GDP is increasing is a sure sign of future economic problems. Care to address that point?

Adding to the already massive national debt is foolishly mortaging the country's future for short-term gain. The huge deficits created by Bush's irresponsible tax cuts are going to create serious long-term problems for the economy.

Not in keynsian economics; the tax less and spend more philosophy is intended to create jobs, and therefore more tax payers. It all evens out in the long run.

Do you mean Keynesian economics? You shouldn't discuss topics that you don't know how to spell and don't understand. Keynes recommended that, during an economic recession, the government stimulate the economy with a combination of tax cuts and increased spending, thus running a budget deficit. He also recommended, when the economy was expanding, the government run a budget surplus to liquidate the debt incurred by previous deficits. Bush correctly cut taxes during the recession. After the economy was growing again, he incorrectly pushed through more tax cuts, and is trying to make what were supposed to be temporary tax cuts permanent. Bush is an economic illiterate, and his economic policies are not Keynesian, they are Reaganomics, or supply-side economics, which has been completely discredited among reality-based economists.

Finally, oil futures are now hovering around $44/barrel. High energy prices create intractable problems for the economy. Higher energy prices mean consumers have less to spend, thus further reducing consumer spending. Higher energy prices mean higher costs, thus lower profits for businesses.

Bush doesn't control oil prices. He can only encourage getting more sources for oil (domestic -- which he has done), or alternative power supply funding (which he has done). Kerry has wanted to impose even more taxes on gasoline in the past, and that would increase the cost for gasoline.

Again with the strawman arguments. Whether Bush controls oil prices or not is irrelevant. We are discussing whether the economy is in good shape and improving. The high oil prices are a sure sign of future economic problems.

Bush is also partially to blame for the high oil prices. Because of his Iraq War, Iraqi oil production is less than half prewar levels. That decreases supply, causing prices to rise. About $15 per barrel of the oil price is what is called a "terrorism premium". Bush's war has greatly increased terrorism in the oil-rich Middle East, making it more likely that terrorist attacks in Iraq and Saudi Arabia will disrupt the oil supply.

Increasing the tax on gasoline would actually be a good thing. It would penalize drivers of gas hogs, and put a damper on consumption, thus decreasing demand, which would lower oil prices.

You claim Bush is funding alternative power suppies. Would you care to document that he has done so at levels above what Clinton was already doing? Please don't cite hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a method of storing energy. Hydrogen takes more energy to create than its use in a fuel cell provides.

The reality is that the economically illiterate George Bush has driven the economy into a ditch. Are we going to trust his assurances that he knows how to get us out of the ditch, or are we going to hire a new driver?

What Bush has been doing has made perfect sense in the Keynsian economic school of thought.

As I previously pointed out, Bush's economic policies have nothing to do with Keynesian economics. His policies are a rehash of Reaganomics, which is all tax cuts all the time. Reaganomics results in huge budget deficits and a steady growth of national debt as a percentage of GDP.

It seems you have a superifical view of macroeconomic principles.

It seems you have no understanding of macroeconomic principles, based on you mischaracterization of Keynesian economics. Please do not patronize me with comments such as your last one. I have the course work equivalent of an MBA, including several graduate courses in economics.

How many graduate courses in economics have you taken? How many undergraduate courses?

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 09:39 AM
Donguillermo, first of all, forgive any past or current incorrect spellings (attack against the person not the argument -- fallacy); I am typing in a hurry without any chance for review. Do you really want me to label all of your fallacies?

1. "talking points" and "Mindless cheerleading?" Simple non-sequitur; the truth of any of my statements, do not matter about the character of a source that may sound like. If we want to say that mindless cheerleading consists of pointing back to statistics. The actual news shows the economy getting better. The points you brought up are NOT used as signs to show the GROWTH of an economy -- except has political mumblings. What is used as growth of an economy is GDP growth (refer to my last point).

2. "President Hoover" Simple non-sequitur; the truth of Bush's comments do not exist in the economics of the last president that used a specific line. I presented another example of a catch phrase being used by another person to show you that these points do not make any sense to the issue at hand.

"Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 1984, the Commerce Department reported ... Last month, the government reported that GDP grew at a 7.2 percent clip in the third quarter. Economists, on average, expected that to be revised to 7.6 percent, according to"

Nearly 8% in the third quarter! Back to the drawing board.

4. I glossed over that line of reasoning because it says nothing about the growth of the economy. Again, according to classical economics, the GDP is how we determine the state of the economy. What you are talking about is the state of the PEOPLE in the economy -- in the economy at a transition state at that!

5. No, wage rate is not a sign of economic health. However, it may be a sign of how well people are doing in the economy. What you seem to forget is that if the average of wages go down, then prices also go down (again, classical economics). Either way, as more jobs get created, the less workers around there will be. This pushes the wage rates up. In other words, we need to wait! Moreover, I don't see how you would apply any of this to Bush and his Admin. Since the labor market determines wages, this can not be a platform to attack the current government with. That's why I brought it up -- no strawman there; it's just an out of context attack on your part.

6. Again, according to the GDP, the economy is improving. You can't weasle your way out of this fact by making up things you think show a negative growth.

7. Increased interest rates are a real sign of inflation and inflation control. And, as expected, interest rates were higher on average during the clinton-gore admin -- see the graphs for yourselves:

8. What I mean is that too many people were employed for the economy to support for a given time. Mostly in the IT sectors was this the case -- it just couldn't last forever, and it didn't.

9. The Iraq war accounts for a lot of that deficit (a little more than a 1/4th). Bush shouldn't take responsibility for the Iraq war; afterall, only congress can authorize a use of force -- and it did. He just lead us through it. Bush does take responsibility for the tax cuts, for which he argues lead us to this great growth (again, look at the GDP).

10. "Currently he promises to win support from the German and French governments for the occupation, but says he will also send 40,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq rather than pull out."

I'm having trouble finding Kerry's exact quote for the healthcare deficit (this was awhile ago), and if I can find it again, I'll post it in due time. However, here are some concerns:

“Federal costs under the Kerry plans would be $895 billion over ten years to extend insurance to 26.7 million uninsured [of 43.6 million total uninsured]. This includes approximately $230 billion in federal spending for the reinsurance pool that targets those with health insurance and $665 billion for programs targeting the uninsured.” -- Kenneth E. Thorpe, “An Overview And Analysis Of The Democratic Presidential Candidates’ Health Care Reform Proposals,” 9/7/03; “Health Insurance Coverage In The United States: 2002,” U.S. Census Bureau, 9/03

"Kerry said he would fund his plan by repealing the reductions Congress approved in 2001 in income tax rates for the top two brackets -- and perhaps the top three -- as well as more generous treatment of personal exemptions for the affluent. He'd also reduce the tax break planned for estates. Peter Orszag, a tax expert at the Brookings Institution, a think tank, said those proposals would save about $80 billion to $90 billion a year by 2013. That wouldn't be enough to pay for Kerry's health-care plan, much less the other initiatives he is considering.” -- Ronald Brownstein, “Kerry Unveils Health-Care Overhaul Plan,” Los Angeles Times, 5/17/03

12. I'll address your "national debt as a percentage of GDP is increasing is a sure sign of future economic problems" point whenever you back it up with some evidence.

13. The last tax-cut was passed late May 2003 wherein the economy was just starting to grow. Have you seen Bush asking for even more tax cuts lately?
"Keynesians believe that prices and, especially, wages respond slowly to changes in supply and demand, resulting in shortages and surpluses, especially of labor."

" The 1960s and 1980s were periods of sustained high growth rates in the economy. The major reason for this growth is the tax cuts enacted in the beginning of each decade. President Kennedy's and President Reagan's tax cuts resulted in higher investment, lower unemployment, and improved overall economic performance. "
"Economic theory makes it clear that tax increases harm economic growth. However, like many economic questions, it is important to look at the historical record to confirm the theory. Economists have looked at tax reduction throughout the world. In the United States, there were two significant post-World War II periods of tax reduction: the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s and the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s. A look at these episodes demonstrates that cutting taxes unleashes the creative forces of the American economy and provides incentives to work, save and invest. "

"The Kennedy Administration's proposal to reduced taxes on business continued into 1964. In 1964, the corporate tax rate fell from 52 percent to 48 percent. Also, individual tax rates fell. The top marginal tax rate fell from 90 percent to 70 percent. The lowest marginal tax rate fell from 20 percent to 14 percent. The result was an expanding economy. Real GNP growth, which averaged only 2.4 percent from 1952 to 1960, rose to 4.5 percent in the sixties (Figure 4). When the expansion that started in February of 1961 ended nearly nine years later, it was, and still is, the longest expansion in the history of the United States. "

14. Again, our economy, government, and adminstration doesn't have much say with respect to foriegn oil prices. OPEC, on the other hand, does. Moreover, we never bought Iraqi oil -- nor did any other country -- due to the "oil for food" program. Iraq is the one that has had attacks on its oil supply.

"BUSH ADMINISTRATION CONTINUES INCREASED INVESTMENTS FOR ETHANOL AND BIOENERGY PROJECTS ... WASHINGTON, Oct. 22, 2002—Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman today announced the approval of 35 Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development grants in 22 states, totaling over $7.2 million. The grants will foster the development of alternative energy sources while spurring economic growth and job creation in rural communities. ... “President Bush’s comprehensive energy plan places significant emphasis on the use of alternative energy sources, such as ethanol and biodiesel, as part of the nation’s overall energy strategy,” said Veneman "

That's just ONE example.

I have had plenty of course work in economics; about the same as you. Not that it matters -- such an appeal is also a fallacy. I await your response.

Good day,

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:20 AM
All I see here is the left trying to debunk another's argument so they get more votes. Their pissed off because Nadar is getting on more and more state ballots and it's taking votes away from them.

If you want to vote third party do so, don't let some left wing nut job try to talk you into voting their party, especially if they use the picture of hillary clinton on their avatar of all people...

Vote the way your heart tells you to vote, they can debunk your argument with fancy words and graphs alike, but anybody can pull any graph out of anywhere and spin it the way they want to.

I know, that both parties have made promises in the past and then totally forgot about them in the future, empty promises tell me that they just don't care, all that really matters to them is getting elected.

As I was at put in bay island I heard a politician talking, and he was such a sour puss, he really did seem depressed.

This is what he said " I don't care about anything else as long as I get elected" seems to be the mentally of all politicans today, their heart isn't where the people's hearts are at, though they claim it is, but we all know its for their own political gain.

I don't know why people like going back to the wall to hit their head against it time after time. It gets boring after awhile and I don't really enjoy hitting my head against the wall, I haven't seen results from it, and I don't think I will.

All I can do and you can do is vote for somebody different, they can bitch and moan about how it doesn't count and it's a protest vote but their trying to get you to cave and vote their party. I had some ahole democrat call me the other day and REMIND me to vote democrat.
Excuse me??? Who are you tell me who to vote for, call my house, to make sure I am voting democrat.. These people are nuts.

Their style of pressure pisses more people off then it does make them cave.
It's bad marketing and their sales pitch stinks.
Don't be fooled by the so called facts and figures they put forth.
You put real facts and figures in front of their face and they'll act like they don't see it.
Bottom line is, don't fall for their horse#. Anybody that supports Kerry Or the Clinton's has a screw loose.

The whole party whores themselves around pretending to be everything to everyone...

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:37 AM
Quite honestly, I would hope another has an argument/attempts to debunk counter arguments. If nothing else, we should progress in reason rather than political dogma. We should talk about the issues (government and economy, government and civil liberties, etc). Both major 3rd parties have arguments and counter arguments too. The libertarian party's platform, for example, appeals to me the most because it focuses on personal liberties (in all respects).

I also agree with you about a critique of our electorial system. Good leaders are not necessarily put up for election, but rather people thought to be able to win. As such, we are generally voting for a political party than a specific leader. In these days, "voting Bush" and "voting Kerry" actually mean "voting republican" and "voting democrat" respectively, but should that be the case?

I personally like Nader's response with respect to the 2000 election that went something along these lines: green party voters didn't waste their votes on me, rather democrat voters wasted their votes on Gore. There are two sides of this issue, realistic or not, Nader could (as in, had a possibility to) have won -- yet a majority of people decided not to vote for him when they could have done so.

I'm not so sure I agree with your "heart" comment though; if I were to elect the pilot of my plane, I sure wouldn't want to just go with a 'gut feeling.' We would rationally want to look at his qualifications, wouldn't we?

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 11:49 AM
Obviously you should vote for the person who best fits your ideas. When I say vote from your heart, it means trust your dudgement enough not to swing over to the other side. Personally I like the lp because of their tax stance, foreign policy ideology, civil liberties, social security, gun laws, and feedom of speech.
I'm starting to think some people on here don't know when and when not to take things literally. what a shame.

edit: rephrased

[edit on 5-8-2004 by TrueLies]

posted on Aug, 5 2004 @ 01:17 PM
So, in effect what you all are saying is reliquish the right to vote for someone who isn't democrat or be pummelled by even more rhetoric? Right? Ladys and Gentleman, the candidates are spending a fortune to campaign for themselves and their platforms are clear by now...I think. I know pretty well where Bush is going but still am waiting for Kerry to come out with a plan. Its all well and good to criticize Bush, but sooner or later, we need a good solid offensive plan from Kerry.

My point is this, coming out with a post condemning someone's right to vote for a legitimate candidate and the attributing that statement to dispelling propaganda is laughable. This is nothing more than playbook strategy and we all know it. If you want to vote for Kerry, by all my guest. If you want to vote for Bush, have at it. But realize that you have only one vote (unless you can figure out how to cleanly punch two ballots..some obviously could not), make your decision and let everyone else make theirs.

Oh, and for the record, I agree with Skadi in principle about the right to vote for a third party candidate. She has no call to defend her decision to do so..and as for the help in moderating...thanks but no thanks.

posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
One thing I DONT tolerate is some lefty pinko trying to tell me how to vote.

Well done! I think I'm gonna laugh about that all week!

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 05:11 PM

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
One thing I DONT tolerate is some lefty pinko trying to tell me how to vote.

Oh, I just caught this.... Is that supposed to be me Skadi?

If so, I'm glad you've got me all figured out. All wrapped up, packaged, and labeled. Shall we prepare a label for you now?

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
And for my fellow third party folks, keep voting third party. Dont listen to this nonsense. Because we alone know its a pointless race anyway, you lose whether Bush or kerry, twin evils and traitors to America. The only way the third party system has any hope is for us to keep voting our way, keep pushing them as an option, and eventually, when this syetm crumbles, we shall have our day in the sun.

Ok, first of all, you don't have to listen. I didn't expect many people to listen, which they didn't. I just tried to give a decently reasoned explaintion of my point of view. Alot of people, just don't understand how or government works and why voting third party will get you squat. If both democrats and republicans are the same, what makes you think some third party is going to be any different if they get into power (which they won't unless we have a parlimentary system of government)?

But no, instead of giving me reasons why my point of view is wrong (in your opinion) I get cynicism and insults. Great...whatever.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in