If Americans really did vote for morals, how did Kerry lose? [Archive]

TheDeadWalk

11-21-2004, 08:53 PM

It's all in what they do in office.

Take Bush's tax cut for instance.

Democrats blast that it's for the rich.

In reality, it is. The more money you made, the more money you got back.

BUT, in the Republican's sense, the rich need the money in order to get the economy rolling again. The Rich are supposed to take their rich tax cut and invest it somewhere in the economy, mainly by using it to help invest in capital, or buy certain things.

In a perfect world, that is a near perfect plan. The only problem is that you are trusting the rich to take a noble decision and not invest the money into foreign affairs by going on a foreign vacation or buying ferrarri's and shit.

The democrats would rather have kept that money and used it towards government spending, thereby helping the economy by using your tax dollars, not giving them back.

I would rather trust elected officials to spend money to bring the economy back and not Paris Hilton.

As far as demographics go, the middle class, the poor and minorities do tend to favor democrats. Actually most people claim to be independent because then they truly feel that they make their own decisions, despite having beliefs that would favor a certain party.

Lynn7

11-21-2004, 09:19 PM

a lot of middle class people are now becoming Republican. If you listen to conservative radio it is not rich people who are calling in- it is regular people like policemen and nurses and teachers etc.

If the Dems really wanted that money to help the poor it would be great but unfortunatly the powerful Dems are just as corrupt as the rich Repubs. They use the tax money to increase their power base and instead of the money going where it should it goes to their fat cat friends. Jesse jackson is a perfect example of this. Much of the money he has raised has gone to help his family and friends-not to the poor who could really be helped. Robeert Byrd brings tons of pork into his state- lots of over the top spending that could be better spent on the poor.

I am all for helping the poor and not the Dems or the Repubs. Doyou know in the annual list of the most charitable it is the conservatives who give the most money to charities year after year. The liberals just assume that governement is taking care of the poor I guess. Lots of conservatives I know are not making too much money and yet give 10% of their entire income to church and charities. I really resent it when each election cycle the Dems portray the Repubs as the rich party- it's just not true. How about Barbara Striesand, Speilberg, and that megabillionare who was so supportive of the Kerry campaign? And how about Kerry, and the Kennedy's and the Rockerfellers. Pretty rich members of the Dem party.

TheDeadWalk

11-21-2004, 09:39 PM

a lot of middle class people are now becoming Republican. If you listen to conservative radio it is not rich people who are calling in- it is regular people like policemen and nurses and teachers etc.

I don't listen to conservative radio.

All three occupations you listed require schooling higher than a high school diploma.

If the Dems really wanted that money to help the poor it would be great but unfortunatly the powerful Dems are just as corrupt as the rich Repubs.

Ok, that's where we were mistaken. You're talking about the poor, homeless, churches, and charities. I was talking about the economy and jobs in America.

Doyou know in the annual list of the most charitable it is the conservatives who give the most money to charities year after year. The liberals just assume that governement is taking care of the poor I guess.

What you have just said is this:

"Because liberals do not give as much or better to charities than conservatives, they obviously do not care about the poor, while the conservatives do." What, do you want them to match it dollar for dollar?

By the way, I would rather a political faction work on putting a new factory in town than 50,000 bowls of soup.

You know, the whole story about if you give a man a fish you have fed him, if you teach a man to fish he can feed himself for the rest of his life? Yeah, that.

It seems you're pretty passionate about the poor, and that's cool. But as you said, there are just as many corrupts on each side. I'm trying to focus on the actual point of the parties though, not their bad apples.

Lots of conservatives I know are not making too much money and yet give 10% of their entire income to church and charities.

Christianity does that to people. George Bush has made himself a poster boy for Christianity to the point to where to be Christian almost means you must be conservative. So you seeing people at the collection plate dumping in doesn't suprise me that they're conservative at all.

Actually, look at the professions you mentioned above: Nurse. Police. Teacher. All are professions where you put other people before yourself, the same as Christianity teaches its disciples to be.

How about Barbara Striesand, Speilberg, and that megabillionare who was so supportive of the Kerry campaign? And how about Kerry, and the Kennedy's and the Rockerfellers. Pretty rich members of the Dem party.

And the price of tea in China is....?

You found rich members of the democratic party. You are going to. Hell, Hollywood basically supports the democratic party. That doesn't mean that a majority of democrats aren't middle class, lower class, or a minority.

The Postmaster General

11-22-2004, 04:12 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lynn7
Doyou know in the annual list of the most charitable it is the conservatives who give the most money to charities year after year. The liberals just assume that governement is taking care of the poor I guess.

Do you by chance have the statistic for which group is more likely to have their taxes done by a professional?

Lots of conservatives I know are not making too much money and yet give 10% of their entire income to church and charities.

More conservatives go to chuch. It is custom to give 10% of your earnings to your church.

So, I would say that giving the minimum that is expected, and then being able to deduct it from your taxes --- That's hardly a fair representation of willingness to help the poor.

I think a better guage would be to look at volunteer work.

darchangel

11-22-2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
If the Dems really wanted that money to help the poor it would be great but unfortunatly the powerful Dems are just as corrupt as the rich Repubs. They use the tax money to increase their power base and instead of the money going where it should it goes to their fat cat friends. Jesse jackson is a perfect example of this. Much of the money he has raised has gone to help his family and friends-not to the poor who could really be helped. Robeert Byrd brings tons of pork into his state- lots of over the top spending that could be better spent on the poor.

I am all for helping the poor and not the Dems or the Repubs. Doyou know in the annual list of the most charitable it is the conservatives who give the most money to charities year after year. The liberals just assume that governement is taking care of the poor I guess. Lots of conservatives I know are not making too much money and yet give 10% of their entire income to church and charities. I really resent it when each election cycle the Dems portray the Repubs as the rich party- it's just not true. How about Barbara Striesand, Speilberg, and that megabillionare who was so supportive of the Kerry campaign? And how about Kerry, and the Kennedy's and the Rockerfellers. Pretty rich members of the Dem party.

first of all, i personally take insult to the Robert C. Byrd comment; i'm FROM West Virginia, and our state is usually second from the bottom in education, available jobs markets, and financial stability in the nation in every poll conducted....we ARE those poor people who need money.

Robert C. Byrd has helped us by instituting programs such as the Promise Scholarship, which allowed thousands of West Virginia kids to go to college when they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. Byrd also gave the okay on projects such as the Benedum Airport and the FBI Center in Fairmont, which have brought more jobs into a state that desperately needed them. he's giving life to a dead economy that's been plummeting with our dwindling coal resources.

also, Byrd went on a filibuster to try and stop the Iraq war. why you ask? because he knew West Virginia kids who either enlisted due to lack of a job in our state or kids who were in the National Guard to help pay for college would be sent to war.

case in point: Don't bash Robert Byrd, period. He's a good man and unlike many politicians, he actually cares about the people in this state.

also, i tire of you using your opinion as fact to bash democrats and liberals in general. Have you forgotten that Dick Cheney is a former CEO of Haliburton? were you aware that he's still one of the top stockholders of the company?

Also, I don't think including movie stars and directors is a fair portrayal of how many 'rich liberals' there are. there are lots of rich Republicans and lots of rich third party people too (Ross Perot, anyone?)

case in point: don't get me started on bashing rich people, or i'll bring up 'Reaganomics'...

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

Lynn7

11-22-2004, 11:29 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
[B]I don't listen to conservative radio.

All three occupations you listed require schooling higher than a high school diploma.

Ok, that's where we were mistaken. You're talking about the poor, homeless, churches, and charities. I was talking about the economy and jobs in America.

________________________________________________

My point was that Dems always try to paint the Repub party as being made up of rich white people. My point is that the party is made up of regular people that you see each day on the streets-not the millonaires they would have you believe make up the party.

______________________________________________
What you have just said is this:

"Because liberals do not give as much or better to charities than conservatives, they obviously do not care about the poor, while the conservatives do." What, do you want them to match it dollar for dollar?
__________________________________________________ ____

The Dems are always painting the Repubs as uncaring for the poor and we do not.We beleive in helping the poor through charities and personal contributions and the Dems tend to think the poor should be helped through the government. That is my point. I think charities are better than gov since the gov workers are paid and may not be as enthusiastic as the volunteers who are passionate about the people they help.

______________________________________________

By the way, I would rather a political faction work on putting a new factory in town than 50,000 bowls of soup.

You know, the whole story about if you give a man a fish you have fed him, if you teach a man to fish he can feed himself for the rest of his life? Yeah, that.
__________________________________________________ _____

I absolutely agree with this!! But the Dems consistently raise taxes and increase regulations whcih casues businesses to go out of business, to move to different areas, or to lay off. That is what Arnie is trying to do to California- bring businesses back in after years of unfriendly Dem policies he is trying to lure companies back to the state so people can be employed again.

__________________________________________________ __
It seems you're pretty passionate about the poor, and that's cool. But as you said, there are just as many corrupts on each side. I'm trying to focus on the actual point of the parties though, not their bad apples.
_________________________________________________-

I have no problem with my tax money going to the real poor and to the sick- I resent it when my money goes to support redundant bureacracies and to help elected people stay in power.

_________________________________________________
You found rich members of the democratic party. You are going to. Hell, Hollywood basically supports the democratic party. That doesn't mean that a majority of democrats aren't middle class, lower class, or a minority.
__________________________________________________ ___

It's slightly hypocritical for the rich Dems to be condemning the Repubs for being the party of rich uncaring people when they themselves are rich and uncaring. Going to a charity ball (while dripping in diamonds and designer clothes) is not the same as rolling up your sleeves in a soup kitchen. I just get mad when these people condemn others when they are guilty of the offenses they charge.

Lynn7

11-22-2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lynn7

Lots of conservatives I know are not making too much money and yet give 10% of their entire income to church and charities.

More conservatives go to chuch. It is custom to give 10% of your earnings to your church.

So, I would say that giving the minimum that is expected, and then being able to deduct it from your taxes --- That's hardly a fair representation of willingness to help the poor.

I think a better guage would be to look at volunteer work.

I happen to know that most people who go to church do not give 10% of their income. I know the Catholics do not do this (it isn't even expected) and the Greek church I grew up with does not do this. In the Protestant churches it is more common to see this done but many people do not do it and most pastors do not demand it. My church does not let the pastors see how much each person is giving to keep the two totally separate. I admire people who give 10%- that is no small thing. We do not happen to do this but someday I would like to be able to but I know many who do.

Lynn7

11-22-2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by darchangel
first of all, i personally take insult to the Robert C. Byrd comment; i'm FROM West Virginia, and our state is usually second from the bottom in education, available jobs markets, and financial stability in the nation in every poll conducted....we ARE those poor people who need money.

Robert C. Byrd has helped us by instituting programs such as the Promise Scholarship, which allowed thousands of West Virginia kids to go to college when they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. Byrd also gave the okay on projects such as the Benedum Airport and the FBI Center in Fairmont, which have brought more jobs into a state that desperately needed them. he's giving life to a dead economy that's been plummeting with our dwindling coal resources.

also, Byrd went on a filibuster to try and stop the Iraq war. why you ask? because he knew West Virginia kids who either enlisted due to lack of a job in our state or kids who were in the National Guard to help pay for college would be sent to war.

case in point: Don't bash Robert Byrd, period. He's a good man and unlike many politicians, he actually cares about the people in this state.

also, i tire of you using your opinion as fact to bash democrats and liberals in general. Have you forgotten that Dick Cheney is a former CEO of Haliburton? were you aware that he's still one of the top stockholders of the company?

Also, I don't think including movie stars and directors is a fair portrayal of how many 'rich liberals' there are. there are lots of rich Republicans and lots of rich third party people too (Ross Perot, anyone?)

case in point: don't get me started on bashing rich people, or i'll bring up 'Reaganomics'...

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

Reganomics was great and I happened to hate him at the time ( I was a liberal) but even I admired the way he turned around the economy- it was totally amazing!

Byrd has brought a lot of jobs and some good programs but you make my point for me- he gets all the glory from OUR tax money. People say what a great man! How much of his own money has gone to these programs? He has been known for spending tons of tax money on unnecessary projects and wasting money. Our money.

Look at what is happening in Mass right now with the Big Dig. A pork project to help give people jobs (especially union workers). Teh project started out as one that would cost a few billion and now it is leaking like crazy, is going to take 10 years to fix (if it doens't collapse first) and it will cost billions and billions of dollars to pay for it all.and who is going to pay for it??? I resent this. The money should have been spent differently. The gov should not be creating jobs for the sake of jobs- let the private sector do it.

TheDeadWalk

11-23-2004, 08:00 AM

See, Lynn... that's exactly why talking about this is so difficult.

If someone mentions that people who make over 50,000/per year are MORE LIKELY to be Republican than Democrat, the Republicans feel like they have to start pointing out rich democrats, poor republicans, and work for the poor.

The same thing happened when I talked about cancer to someone. I said "People who are older are most likely to be the ones who get cancer." He IMMEDIATELY brought up an irrelevant anecdote that his 9 year old cousin had cancer. That does not take away from the majority! It doesn't prove anything wrong!

If you are republican, you are most likely to have more money, you are most likely to be white, and you are most likely to be Christian. However, you can STILL be poor, black, Satanic, and giving your paycheck to the United Way every week. It doesn't matter, the poor/black/satanic/fund raiser is still in the minority. There can be 1,000 of him, it doesn't matter, because there are more white/upper class/Christians than him in the Republican party.

The same happens with the democratic party, you mentioned that Republicans are on average to give more to the poor through monetary means, and someone stands up with a democratic representative in their favor.

Your community, your neighbor, and your poor cousin is not going to sway what the majority of the Republican party is, and pointing out Ben Affleck and Barbara Streisand isn't going to change what the majority of the democratic party actually is. They are trivial anecdotes that do NOT make up the majority. They are in the MINORITY.

And by the way, I'll say what my democratic representatives won't say it... Taxes don't just disappear into the sky, the government is supposed to use them to help the economy. They are supposed to spend the money on capital in order to help develop infant industries, or distribute contracts onto interstates, state highways, construction sites, purchasing from manufacturers, and much more. Doing this business creates jobs, which in essence has the tax dollars flowing back into Americans' pockets, who are to spend that money in the local donut shop bitching about taxes that is finally getting business because people don't buy donuts unless they have the money to pay for the shit.

JohnTheHenchman

11-23-2004, 09:27 AM

Of course lots of Republicans are rich. The true Republican way is to achieve wealth, be successful on your own without the government handing you everything. To me, that frame of mind is accepting of everyone, not just white evangelical christians.

By the way, which is the party that helped Lyndon Johnson pass the civil rights act? Was it the Democrats? No it wasn't, because for a long time the Democrats (the dixiecrats really) were pretty much the KKK party.

I think the Republicans look out for those who aren't elite (most politicians are kind of rich, regardless of the party) as much as the Democrats, but just in a different way. And jeez, Democrats don't even appoint minorities or anything to cabinet positions but they're representative of those not white, rich, and christian?

free

11-23-2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
By the way, which is the party that helped Lyndon Johnson pass the civil rights act? Was it the Democrats? No it wasn't, because for a long time the Democrats (the dixiecrats really) were pretty much the KKK party.

The race issue split the party, at least here in Alabama.

You had the actually intelligent Democrats, and you had the "Dixie"crats, as you say, giving the real party a bad name.

A brief article about the death of George Wallace (http://www.cnn.com/US/9809/14/wallace.obit/) touched on this.

In 1968, Wallace made a third-party bid for the presidency, garnering more than 13 percent of the vote and carrying five Southern states. The defection of southern Democrats helped sink the party's nominee, Hubert Humphrey, and made possible the election of Richard Nixon.

I don't have a link to back this up, but in school we used to do a lot of reports about George Wallace, and early in his political career, he actually opposed segregation, but he found out to get elected in Alabama, you had to be a segregationist, so he became one.

free

11-23-2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Reganomics was great and I happened to hate him at the time ( I was a liberal) but even I admired the way he turned around the economy- it was totally amazing!

But when you compare the long term affect of Reganomics, the results ultimately ended up very bad financially for the county, as in high interest rates, lost interest in American products, and the expanding of the national debt.

Here (http://www.informationheadquarters.com/War/Cold_War/History_of_the_US_80-now.shtml) is some good reading about America from 1980 on up.

The medium-term effect of Reganomics was a soaring budget deficit as spending exceeded revenue year after year due to tax cuts and increased defense spending. The deficit rose from $60 billion in 1980 to a peak of $220 billion in 1986 (well over 5 percent of GDP). Over this period, national debt more than doubled from $749 billion to $1,746 billion. While deficit spending has value as an economic stimulus, the dimension of the budget shortfalls of the 1980s was alarming. The deficits were keeping interest rates, although lower than the 20 percent peak levels earlier in the administration due to a respite in the administration's tight money policies, high and threatening to push them higher. The government was thus forced to borrow so much money to pay its bills that it was crowing out investment and driving up the price of borrowing, once again drying up investment and slowing down the economy. In addition, deficits were keeping the US dollar overvalued. With such a high demand for dollars (due in large measure to government borrowing), the dollar achieved an alarming strength
against other major currencies. As the dollar soared in value, so American exports became increasingly uncompetitive, with Japan as the leading beneficiary. The high value of the dollar made it difficult for foreigners to buy American goods and encouraged Americans to buy imports.

The Postmaster General

11-23-2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I happen to know that most people who go to church do not give 10% of their income. I know the Catholics do not do this (it isn't even expected) and the Greek church I grew up with does not do this. In the Protestant churches it is more common to see this done but many people do not do it and most pastors do not demand it. My church does not let the pastors see how much each person is giving to keep the two totally separate. I admire people who give 10%- that is no small thing. We do not happen to do this but someday I would like to be able to but I know many who do.

You're getting into specifics that don't change my point.

ie. Donating money isn't an accurate gauge of how willing someone is to help the poor, because it can equally benefit the donator in many instances.

darchangel

11-23-2004, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
Reganomics was great and I happened to hate him at the time ( I was a liberal) but even I admired the way he turned around the economy- it was totally amazing!

Byrd has brought a lot of jobs and some good programs but you make my point for me- he gets all the glory from OUR tax money. People say what a great man! How much of his own money has gone to these programs? He has been known for spending tons of tax money on unnecessary projects and wasting money. Our money.

Look at what is happening in Mass right now with the Big Dig. A pork project to help give people jobs (especially union workers). Teh project started out as one that would cost a few billion and now it is leaking like crazy, is going to take 10 years to fix (if it doens't collapse first) and it will cost billions and billions of dollars to pay for it all.and who is going to pay for it??? I resent this. The money should have been spent differently. The gov should not be creating jobs for the sake of jobs- let the private sector do it.

The Points (in some sort of order)

-Reaganomics was HORRIBLE! the 'trickle down' theory is a load of total crap, because the rich won't share with their tax cut dollars with the poor! why else would Robert C. Byrd have to ask for the funding for jobs in West Virginia if the government were actually sharing some of those tax cuts for people of all economic groups!

-i wouldn't guess to know how much of RCB's tax money goes to the programs he supports...and i'm betting you don't either.

- the reason the government creates jobs is because the private sector WON'T do it. why? because it costs more money, and from a business savvy standpoint, they can't afford to pay for all those extra workers. so that in turn means no more jobs and lay offs. that in turn means welfare, early social security draws and unemployment. either way, the government is paying for the people; it's part of our economic system to help those who can't help themselves.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

TheDeadWalk

11-23-2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Of course lots of Republicans are rich. The true Republican way is to achieve wealth, be successful on your own without the government handing you everything. To me, that frame of mind is accepting of everyone, not just white evangelical christians.

I think the Republicans look out for those who aren't elite (most politicians are kind of rich, regardless of the party) as much as the Democrats, but just in a different way. And jeez, Democrats don't even appoint minorities or anything to cabinet positions but they're representative of those not white, rich, and christian?

You can pull dirty laundry history about any political party. There were some racist democrats in the sixties. That doesn't help prove any points here except try to mudsling the opposing party.

I prefer to see my tax dollars go to good work, see and enjoy the after-effects in my environment. What I don't want to see is my tax dollars be used on a WMD fishing expedition, with $86 billion more going to reconstruct the country after the fishing expedition, and X billion more months later when it is decided that Mars exploration is a top initiative at this moment in time.

The Republican party may want everyone to succeed in their system, but the truth is their motives of going about them I disagree with. I don't think you help the economy by giving the people a percentage of their income tax back, I think you help the economy by domestic spending purchases. I don't think you do the country, or the world any good when you act like democracy to the world is a mission from God. God didn't call George W. on the batphone, he didn't e-mail him, write him a letter, take him out for a brunch, or send him a text message saying that the world needs to be democratic or else.

Republicans may say they want people to achieve by not fundamentally doing it for the people themselves, but they sure like to be in everyone else's shit, both domestic and foreign. They need to either be a fair and active member of the United Nations, or resign. I would hate to see Poland start poking around with its leaders saying that they have decided that they believe God wants everyone to have a standard King and Queen, even if just as a representative of the country in a minimal form of Monarchy, and that they will see to it that every country eventually has one. America would tell Poland to "Fuck off" (well, at least we know Dick Cheney would), and if they tried to enforce their minimum monarchy on us, we would isolate ourselves from them and no longer recognize them as a country, or find a way to be at war with them. Point: America is no better than its neighbor, so the mission for universal democracy needs to stop with the Republicans. It isn't God's mission, anymore than it's Allah's mission to have every nation universally Islamic.

JohnTheHenchman

11-23-2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by TheDeadWalk
You can pull dirty laundry history about any political party. There were some racist democrats in the sixties. That doesn't help prove any points here except try to mudsling the opposing party.

I prefer to see my tax dollars go to good work, see and enjoy the after-effects in my environment. What I don't want to see is my tax dollars be used on a WMD fishing expedition, with $86 billion more going to reconstruct the country after the fishing expedition, and X billion more months later when it is decided that Mars exploration is a top initiative at this moment in time.

The Republican party may want everyone to succeed in their system, but the truth is their motives of going about them I disagree with. I don't think you help the economy by giving the people a percentage of their income tax back, I think you help the economy by domestic spending purchases. I don't think you do the country, or the world any good when you act like democracy to the world is a mission from God. God didn't call George W. on the batphone, he didn't e-mail him, write him a letter, take him out for a brunch, or send him a text message saying that the world needs to be democratic or else.

Republicans may say they want people to achieve by not fundamentally doing it for the people themselves, but they sure like to be in everyone else's shit, both domestic and foreign. They need to either be a fair and active member of the United Nations, or resign. I would hate to see Poland start poking around with its leaders saying that they have decided that they believe God wants everyone to have a standard King and Queen, even if just as a representative of the country in a minimal form of Monarchy, and that they will see to it that every country eventually has one. America would tell Poland to "Fuck off" (well, at least we know Dick Cheney would), and if they tried to enforce their minimum monarchy on us, we would isolate ourselves from them and no longer recognize them as a country, or find a way to be at war with them. Point: America is no better than its neighbor, so the mission for universal democracy needs to stop with the Republicans. It isn't God's mission, anymore than it's Allah's mission to have every nation universally Islamic.

Well the reason why I could never vote for Bush was because of his big spending. Fiscal conservatism and big spending DO NOT go hand in hand, and it's something Republicans have yo stray away from.

But I believe that allowing people to keep more of their money does help the economy. The people have more money to spend, invest, what have you.

And about the UN...I'm sorry, but the UN is a joke...I don't blame the US for disregarding them, we shouldn't even let them meet in our country.

What I have a hard time with, is your saying that getting involved in everyone's shit, both foreign and domestically, is a Republican thing. Was it just the Republicans that wanted to go to war? No, it's not. Is it just the Republicans. The Republicans are supposed to be against all of this government intervention, but clearly they aren't...The Democrats don't even try to hide it.

darchangel

11-23-2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman

And about the UN...I'm sorry, but the UN is a joke...I don't blame the US for disregarding them, we shouldn't even let them meet in our country.

um, we sort of CREATED the UN...or at least the League of Nations, which was the predecessor of the UN.

just because we made them doesn't mean we can break them.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

TheDeadWalk

11-23-2004, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman

But I believe that allowing people to keep more of their money does help the economy. The people have more money to spend, invest, what have you.

The thing is, you have to trust other people not to spend it on foreign products. The rich like Ferraris and Michelins.

JohnTheHenchman

11-23-2004, 05:48 PM

I have a friend who uses the same argument and while it's true...is it realistic that ever single wealthy person will buy overseas products?

darchangel

11-23-2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
I have a friend who uses the same argument and while it's true...is it realistic that ever single wealthy person will buy overseas products?

probably moreso than them spending their millions on Ford, apple pie and baseball.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

TheDeadWalk

11-23-2004, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
I have a friend who uses the same argument and while it's true...is it realistic that ever single wealthy person will buy overseas products?

No, but I do believe that the government would spend that money more appropriately, with less chance of that money filtering to any outside sources.

The Postmaster General

11-23-2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
And jeez, Democrats don't even appoint minorities or anything to cabinet

That's.not.true...Al.Gore's.running.mate.was.a.Jew ...Clinton.appointed.the.1st.female.Secretary.of.S tate....

Also,Clinton.appointed.minority.judges.but.the.Rep ublican.led.senate.voted.them.down.

Double.sorry.for.the.periods...My.keyboard.is.brok en.and.I'm.waiting.for.the.replacement.

Also.you.keep.talking.about.democrats.being.for.we lfare.and.stuff,.but.Clinton.wanted.to.stop.welfar e..He.said."It.doesn't.work."

JohnTheHenchman

11-23-2004, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
That's.not.true...Al.Gore's.running.mate.was.a.Jew ...Clinton.appointed.the.1st.female.Secretary.of.S tate....

Also,Clinton.appointed.minority.judges.but.the.Rep ublican.led.senate.voted.them.down.

Double.sorry.for.the.periods...My.keyboard.is.brok en.and.I'm.waiting.for.the.replacement.

Also.you.keep.talking.about.democrats.being.for.we lfare.and.stuff,.but.Clinton.wanted.to.stop.welfar e..He.said."It.doesn't.work."

That's because Clinton was not a typical Democrat and a lot of his views (such as the the one on welfare) were not consistent with his party. Part of the reason why he won actually, amongst other things.

And about Lieberman, I don't care that he's a jew, he's one of the most conservative democrats out there.

TheDeadWalk

11-23-2004, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
And about Lieberman, I don't care that he's a jew, he's one of the most conservative democrats out there.

I think the comment in question was in reference to you basically saying that democrats don't hire minorities for their cabinet, and the whole "Dixecrat" thing that was supposed to insinuate that democrats are racist and facist.

Conservative or not, he was good enough as Gore's VP candidate.

The Postmaster General

11-23-2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
That's because Clinton was not a typical Democrat and a lot of his views (such as the the one on welfare) were not consistent with his party. Part of the reason why he won actually, amongst other things.

Typical.of.what?..We've.only.had.two.Democratic.pr esidents.for.the.past.25
years...

If.you.mean.Dems.aren't.appointing.minorites.becau se.they.don't.get.elected
into.a.position.to.do.any.appointing,.you.would.be .right.

And about Lieberman, I don't care that he's a jew, he's one of the most conservative democrats out there.

What's.that.have.to.do.with.anything?...He's.still .a.Jew,.and.Jews.are.a.
smaller.minority.(3%.of.US)..Does.him.being.not.li beral.enough.for.you.make.him.non-Jewish?...No...

You.are.haralding.Bush.for.picking.minorites.who.a re.more.conservative
than.Liberman.

Besides,.exactly.how.well.known.were.Bush.Sr..and. Reagan.for.appointing.minorities?

JohnTheHenchman

11-23-2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Typical.of.what?..We've.only.had.two.Democratic.pr esidents.for.the.past.25
years...

If.you.mean.Dems.aren't.appointing.minorites.becau se.they.don't.get.elected
into.a.position.to.do.any.appointing,.you.would.be .right.

And about Lieberman, I don't care that he's a jew, he's one of the most conservative democrats out there.

What's.that.have.to.do.with.anything?...He's.still .a.Jew,.and.Jews.are.a.
smaller.minority.(3%.of.US)..Does.him.being.not.li beral.enough.for.you.make.him.non-Jewish?...No...

You.are.haralding.Bush.for.picking.minorites.who.a re.more.conservative
than.Liberman.

Besides,.exactly.how.well.known.were.Bush.Sr..and. Reagan.for.appointing.minorities?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Me heralding Bush? Give me a break, I'm just pointing out the truth, don't put that kind of shit on me.

Also, I don't see how Lieberman is a minority, by religious standards, sure...but he's still a white male...I thought we sought not to bring religion into politics in anyway?

Let's see, Gore was a little to the left of center...and had a very conservative running mate.

You know, I still can't get over you saying I heralded Bush, forget this, I'm done.

The Postmaster General

11-23-2004, 09:20 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

]Me heralding Bush? Give me a break, I'm just pointing out the truth, don't put that kind of shit on me.

What.the.hell?.Are.you.stoned.and.paranoid?.No.one .is.putting.shit.one.you.

Maybe.you're.not.understanding.what.I.meant,by."herald".but.that.doesn't.change.the.
fact.that.you.are.saying.that.Democrats.don't.appo int.minorities.when.
the.only.Democrat.we've.had.for.24.years.did.and.y ou.agreed.that.he.did.

I.think.Bush's.appointments.have.more.to.do.with.c hanging.times.than.with.anything.else.
Like.I.mentioned.earlier.Bush.sr.and.Reagan.didn't .appoint.too.many.minorites.

Also, I don't see how Lieberman is a minority, by religious standards, sure...but he's still a white male...I thought we sought not to bring religion into politics in anyway?

Oh.I.gotcha...I.always.think.of.white.as.Anglo-Saxon..Every.president.has.been.one.of.those

You.were.meaning.white.as.in.white.skinned..and.I. was.looking.at.ancestry.

I.now.see.what.you.were.talking.about.

You.could.have.just.said.that.two.posts.earlier.in stead.of.argueing.a.point.that.
apparently.had.nothing.to.do.with.what.you.were.ta lking.about.

You know, I still can't get over you saying I heralded Bush, forget this, I'm done. [

Instead.of.attempting.to.discuss.the.relavant.poin ts.I.made.you.act.like.you're.percecuted.and.offen ded.
because.I.used.a.word.you.seem.to.have.a.different .understanding.of.than.I.do.(herald-"point.out",announce,declare...ie.John.is.heralding.the.fact.
that.Bush.has.appointed.minorities)

You.basically.ignored.everything.you've.said.in.or der.to.focus.on.this.one.word.I've.correctly.used.

Yeah,.you're.done.alright.

JohnTheHenchman

11-23-2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

]Me heralding Bush? Give me a break, I'm just pointing out the truth, don't put that kind of shit on me.

What.the.hell?.Are.you.stoned.and.paranoid?.No.one .is.putting.shit.one.you.

Maybe.you're.not.understanding.what.I.meant,by."herald".but.that.doesn't.change.the.
fact.that.you.are.saying.that.Democrats.don't.appo int.minorities.when.
the.only.Democrat.we've.had.for.24.years.did.and.y ou.agreed.that.he.did.

I.think.Bush's.appointments.have.more.to.do.with.c hanging.times.than.with.anything.else.
Like.I.mentioned.earlier.Bush.sr.and.Reagan.didn't .appoint.too.many.minorites.

Also, I don't see how Lieberman is a minority, by religious standards, sure...but he's still a white male...I thought we sought not to bring religion into politics in anyway?

Oh.I.gotcha...I.always.think.of.white.as.Anglo-Saxon..Every.president.has.been.one.of.those

You.were.meaning.white.as.in.white.skinned..and.I. was.looking.at.ancestry.

I.now.see.what.you.were.talking.about.

You.could.have.just.said.that.two.posts.earlier.in stead.of.argueing.a.point.that.
apparently.had.nothing.to.do.with.what.you.were.ta lking.about.

You know, I still can't get over you saying I heralded Bush, forget this, I'm done. [

Instead.of.attempting.to.discuss.the.relavant.poin ts.I.made.you.act.like.you're.percecuted.and.offen ded.
because.I.used.a.word.you.seem.to.have.a.different .understanding.of.than.I.do.(herald-"point.out",announce,declare...ie.John.is.heralding.the.fact.
that.Bush.has.appointed.minorities)

You.basically.ignored.everything.you've.said.in.or der.to.focus.on.this.one.word.I've.correctly.used.

Yeah,.you're.done.alright.

Yeah yeah yeah...Let me ask you something...do you enjoy putting people on the defensive because of their opinions and then gloating about it? Just wondering.

If Colin Powell wanted to run for President, he would have had the nomination. It would have been his. Yeah, Madeline Albright was the first woman and that's good...but even if I'm not a Republican, Powell was actually an excellent choice.

Sure, Jesse Jackson wanted it as a Democrat, but let's be real...the Democrats would NEVER let that happen.

I really DO NOT feel that the Democrats hold the best interests of minorities, neither do Republicans.

The Postmaster General

11-24-2004, 12:06 AM

Yeah yeah yeah...Let me ask you something...do you enjoy putting people on the defensive because of their opinions and then gloating about it? Just wondering.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Let.me.make.sure.I.understand.

You're.going.to.blow.off.every.point.I've.made.in. lieu.of.asking.me.to.address.your.personalizations .about.me?

Sorry,.man..Bubba.don't.games.and.that.includes.gl oating,.attempting.to.offend,.getting.defensive,.o r.laughing.at.what
someone.has.said.in.attempt.to.make.them.feel.they .don't.have.a.point.

All.I.have.done.was.disagree.with.you.and.offer.fa ct-based.reasons.as.to.why.I.don't

But.instead.of.discussing.things.you.seem.to.be.in tent.on.acting.as.if.I'm.percecuting.you.

Then.turn.around.and.tell.me.I'm.the.one.fucking.a round.

I.don't.even.understand.why.you.keep.trying.to.mak e.this.into.something.it's.not.

If.you.really.want.to.believe.that.I.sit.at.home.t hinking.of.ways.to.fuck.with.you.in.order.to.appea se.myself
then.you.have.alot.less.respect.for.me.than.I've.s hown.for.you.

If Colin Powell wanted to run for President, he would have had the nomination. It would have been his. Yeah, Madeline Albright was the first woman and that's good...but even if I'm not a Republican, Powell was actually an excellent choice.

He'd.be.a.good.candidate..I.might.have.voted.for.h im.

Sure, Jesse Jackson wanted it as a Democrat, but let's be real...the Democrats would NEVER let that happen.

Oh,.dear.God.let's.hope.not..I.would.not.vote.for. him.

I really DO NOT feel that the Democrats hold the best interests of minorities, neither do Republicans.

This.has.been.my.main.complaint.....

Like,which.democrats.and.which.republicans.are.you .refering.to.

You.say.democrats.aren't.doing.this.then.I.mention .that.the.only.democrat.pres.in.the.last.24.years. did
and.you.agree..So,.that's.a.bit.confusing.

Also.to.note,I.have.a.hard.time.beleiving.that.a.m inority.who.is.also.a.republican.or.a.dem,.wouldn' t.hold.
the.best.interest.of.other.minorities.

PS:

Look.I.understand.you.feel.both.mainstream.parties .are.corrupt.that's.fine.and.very.clear.

If.you.left.it.at.that.I.wouldn't.be.pointing.out. fallacies..I.just.feel.that.if.you.are.going.to.at tack.a.party.you.should.do.it
on.a.party.member.by.party.member.basis..

If.someone.started.saying.that.Libertarians.were.a ll.a.bunch.of.whack.jobs....I'd.ask.them
to.explain,.and.if.they.presented.reasons.to.which .I.had.contrary.knowledge,.I.would.share.that..

Just.as.I'm.going.to.speak.out.when.I.feel.someone .is.wrongly.accussing.my.party.of.something.I.woul d.speak.
out.if.I.feel.any.party.was.being.wrongly.accused. of.things...You.know.this.

JohnTheHenchman

11-24-2004, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Yeah yeah yeah...Let me ask you something...do you enjoy putting people on the defensive because of their opinions and then gloating about it? Just wondering.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Let.me.make.sure.I.understand.

You're.going.to.blow.off.every.point.I've.made.in. lieu.of.asking.me.to.address.your.personalizations .about.me?

Sorry,.man..Bubba.don't.games.and.that.includes.gl oating,.attempting.to.offend,.getting.defensive,.o r.laughing.at.what
someone.has.said.in.attempt.to.make.them.feel.they .don't.have.a.point.

All.I.have.done.was.disagree.with.you.and.offer.fa ct-based.reasons.as.to.why.I.don't

But.instead.of.discussing.things.you.seem.to.be.in tent.on.acting.as.if.I'm.percecuting.you.

Then.turn.around.and.tell.me.I'm.the.one.fucking.a round.

I.don't.even.understand.why.you.keep.trying.to.mak e.this.into.something.it's.not.

If.you.really.want.to.believe.that.I.sit.at.home.t hinking.of.ways.to.fuck.with.you.in.order.to.appea se.myself
then.you.have.alot.less.respect.for.me.than.I've.s hown.for.you.

If Colin Powell wanted to run for President, he would have had the nomination. It would have been his. Yeah, Madeline Albright was the first woman and that's good...but even if I'm not a Republican, Powell was actually an excellent choice.

He'd.be.a.good.candidate..I.might.have.voted.for.h im.

Sure, Jesse Jackson wanted it as a Democrat, but let's be real...the Democrats would NEVER let that happen.

Oh,.dear.God.let's.hope.not..I.would.not.vote.for. him.

I really DO NOT feel that the Democrats hold the best interests of minorities, neither do Republicans.

This.has.been.my.main.complaint.....

Like,which.democrats.and.which.republicans.are.you .refering.to.

You.say.democrats.aren't.doing.this.then.I.mention .that.the.only.democrat.pres.in.the.last.24.years. did
and.you.agree..So,.that's.a.bit.confusing.

Also.to.note,I.have.a.hard.time.beleiving.that.a.m inority.who.is.also.a.republican.or.a.dem,.wouldn' t.hold.
the.best.interest.of.other.minorities.

PS:

Look.I.understand.you.feel.both.mainstream.parties .are.corrupt.that's.fine.and.very.clear.

If.you.left.it.at.that.I.wouldn't.be.pointing.out. fallacies..I.just.feel.that.if.you.are.going.to.at tack.a.party.you.should.do.it
on.a.party.member.by.party.member.basis..

If.someone.started.saying.that.Libertarians.were.a ll.a.bunch.of.whack.jobs....I'd.ask.them
to.explain,.and.if.they.presented.reasons.to.which .I.had.contrary.knowledge,.I.would.share.that..

Just.as.I'm.going.to.speak.out.when.I.feel.someone .is.wrongly.accussing.my.party.of.something.I.woul d.speak.
out.if.I.feel.any.party.was.being.wrongly.accused. of.things...You.know.this.

Eh, I do respect your opinions and all that, in all honesty this is probably just my defensiveness carrying over from when I'm at the university...people will state incorrectly something and I will say they are wrong, and it sounds like I support Bush, when I really just support the truth and get attacked and can't deal with....ahhh.

So yeah, I'm a tad paranoid I guess.

And you bring up a good point...and while I'm not a Republican, I feel that they are unfairly portrayed as not wanting minorities to succeed. I don't think that institutions such as affirmative action have a place within a civil society and if some republicans are against such a thing, I don't think it means that they don't want what's best for people...they just see it as something that is wrong.

No one is going to betray the other side fairly...ever.

But I think people want to ignore why Kerry actually lost and instead focus on how the reasons why Bush won are hokey or whatever.

The Democrats really need to get their act together if they're to win four years from now.

Lynn7

11-24-2004, 11:49 AM

I am not a registered Republican either- since I began voting I have always remained an Independent although I voted straight Dem for years and now am voting straight REpub.

I agree that the Repubs are unfairly portrayed and it really drives me nuts. To respond to a few posts way back I was not saying that the Repubs have no rich people only that the rich people make up a very small minority of the entire US population. The majority of the Repub party is middle class as evidenced by the last election. The thing I object to is when the Dems say the entire party is rich CEOS etc. I have no affinity for these types of rich people and I certainly would not be voting for that kind of party if I beleived that is who they were. I know plenty of conservatives and they are all good and generous kind people. 'Give you the shirt off their back kind of people'.

The Postmaster General

11-24-2004, 03:43 PM

Wow!

Good to have a space bar again.

After reading all of this, I'm starting to think everyone is treated unfairly in one way or another.

Everyone has bias, and I think we like to lump things into groups.

Attacks against political parties, to me, is no different than attacking someone based on race, religion, etc..... And actually the Civil Rights Act of 64 mentions polical affiliation.

Saying Republicans are all CEOs, or that Democrats are all beatnicks, or whatever..... It's just another form of prejudice.

Everyone needs to focus on similarities, not differences in order for this system to progress - IMO.

TheDeadWalk

11-25-2004, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I am not a registered Republican either- since I began voting I have always remained an Independent although I voted straight Dem for years and now am voting straight REpub.

I agree that the Repubs are unfairly portrayed and it really drives me nuts. To respond to a few posts way back I was not saying that the Repubs have no rich people only that the rich people make up a very small minority of the entire US population. The majority of the Repub party is middle class as evidenced by the last election. The thing I object to is when the Dems say the entire party is rich CEOS etc. I have no affinity for these types of rich people and I certainly would not be voting for that kind of party if I beleived that is who they were. I know plenty of conservatives and they are all good and generous kind people. 'Give you the shirt off their back kind of people'.

I don't think the last election proved that the middle class is Republican. The majority of people in the United States consider themselves Independent and spent most of this year undecided on who to vote for. Bush won them over, but they are by not means a "Republican" or even a "Democrat" simply by voting for that one person in this one election.

JohnTheHenchman

11-25-2004, 12:02 PM

I'm inclined to agree with TheDeadWalk.

Look at some of the notable Democrats who went for Bush because of things like homeland security and the war, people underestimate that there is a lot of people who actually used those as their primary reasons in voting for the guy.

At the risk of sounding republican, Kerry was a flip-flopper. And going up against Bush, the President really is the more consistent of the two. Even I'll admit it's where Bush is strong. Not to mention, in the way the two men carry themselves, people are going to prefer the more down to earth George Bush as opposed to the Boston Intellectual, John Kerry.

darchangel

11-29-2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
At the risk of sounding republican, Kerry was a flip-flopper. And going up against Bush, the President really is the more consistent of the two. Even I'll admit it's where Bush is strong. Not to mention, in the way the two men carry themselves, people are going to prefer the more down to earth George Bush as opposed to the Boston Intellectual, John Kerry.

if by "down to earth" you mean "incompetent backwoods moron" i totally agree (i'm not saying you're personally for Bush or attacking you John, i'm just making a general statement on Bush and his inability to make a halfway decent decision thus far during his presidency)

as for Lynn's statements on how 'the thing I object to is when the Dems say the entire party is rich CEOS etc.', i really wish you could at least try not to generalize an entire party's views or maybe check your facts before making statements like that.

most politicians are rich, regardless of party affiliation. if they weren't, they couldn't afford campaigns and other political incidentals. that doesn't mean that rich people can't be empathetic to middle class problems; however, it makes it harder for rich people to understand the progression of their actions as it relates to those who don't have millions.

it would be great if we could have a politician on the national level who was a middle class American; unfortunately, i don't believe it will happen in my lifetime.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

<3mekthx

11-30-2004, 07:05 PM

I feel sorry for Al Gore and John Kerry getting beat by an incompetent backwoods moron. :D

jeo4

11-30-2004, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by <3mekthx
I feel sorry for Al Gore and John Kerry getting beat by an incompetent backwoods moron. :D

Dick Cheney probably feels that way, too.

<3mekthx

11-30-2004, 10:05 PM

Let's not forget John McCain!

darchangel

12-01-2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by <3mekthx
I feel sorry for Al Gore and John Kerry getting beat by an incompetent backwoods moron. :D

really? because i feel MORE sorry for the fact that at least 51% of this country apparently has the mentality that women should keep their legs shut so they don't have to have abortions and Iraquis and gays are the devil's work.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

Criminal Rock

12-01-2004, 11:42 AM

really? because i feel MORE sorry for the fact that at least 51% of this country apparently has the mentality that women should keep their legs shut so they don't have to have abortions and Iraquis and gays are the devil's work.

Huh?

MacReady

12-01-2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Huh?

She's saying that some folks here are laughing Kerry and Gore lost to an incompetent backwoods moron, but those same people are the ones who voted for that incompetent backwoods moron.

Lynn7

12-01-2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by darchangel
really? because i feel MORE sorry for the fact that at least 51% of this country apparently has the mentality that women should keep their legs shut so they don't have to have abortions and Iraquis and gays are the devil's work.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

Actually,Christians don't beleive that Iraqi's and Gays are the devils'
work- we believe all people are sinners and fall short of God's perfection and it is absolutely understandable how our nature's lead us away from God. Christians do endeavor to follow God's teachings and that is where we start to become at odds with society in general but we don't beleive we are inherently better than anyone else or else we are not following Christ's teachings.

JohnTheHenchman

12-01-2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by darchangel
really? because i feel MORE sorry for the fact that at least 51% of this country apparently has the mentality that women should keep their legs shut so they don't have to have abortions and Iraquis and gays are the devil's work.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

What are you talking about?

The issue is not making abortion illegal, it's no longer appropriating public funds to it, something I agree with. Most of the people we're fighting in Iraq are not Iraqis and they certainly are not good people. Though as for the gay thing, the government has no right to determine that gays can't mary. Look at the 14th amendment. I agree with you there.

Thrizzle

12-02-2004, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Most of the people we're fighting in Iraq are not Iraqis and they certainly are not good people.

They aren't? I've heard the opposite. Is anyone really sure?

JohnTheHenchman

12-02-2004, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by Thrizzle
They aren't? I've heard the opposite. Is anyone really sure?

The insurgents? It's common knowledge that they're not the Iraqi army or anything, but militant terrorists not necessarily from Iraq, trying to gain a stronghold.

free

12-02-2004, 01:35 PM

The issue is not making abortion illegal, it's no longer appropriating public funds to it, something I agree with.

The problem there is a person's right to receive medical services, whether they can afford these or not. If a poor woman doens't have the money, she still, by law, is required to have the same medical care as a person making seven figures. So, if abortion is considered a legal, medical practice, I don't see how they could not use tax dollars without violating that law.

Criminal Rock

12-02-2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by MacReady
She's saying that some folks here are laughing Kerry and Gore lost to an incompetent backwoods moron, but those same people are the ones who voted for that incompetent backwoods moron.

I said “huh” because people didn’t vote for bush because of his views on sex or abortions; it was just an OOTB statement. So making a sweeping generalization about the people who voted for Bush is kind of weird, and isn’t necessary.

Criminal Rock

12-02-2004, 01:46 PM

And I think Lynn is correct in her own way, I don’t think we’re all sinners, I just think we’re all not perfect, and there is a difference. And she is right saying that most Christians don’t believe that homosexuals, Iraqis, and Abortionists are the devils work, but there’s something wrong in what they’re doing. And going into detail isn't necessary, you know which people I’m talking about.

Thrizzle

12-02-2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
The insurgents? It's common knowledge that they're not the Iraqi army or anything, but militant terrorists not necessarily from Iraq, trying to gain a stronghold.

I seriously doubt a majority of the resistance in foreign born. From what ive heard there is a small minority of foreign fighters.

darchangel

12-02-2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I said “huh” because people didn’t vote for bush because of his views on sex or abortions; it was just an OOTB statement. So making a sweeping generalization about the people who voted for Bush is kind of weird, and isn’t necessary.

the title of the thread is 'if americans really did vote for morals, how did Kerry lose?'...George Bush's views on abortions and gay marriage are MORAL issues, which is what the majority of the country said they voted for. it's no big secret what Bush's personal morals support (Marriage Protection Week, anyone?). so i think this was a perfectly relevant statement, especially considering the comment it preceded.

also, did i ever say CHRISTIANS believe those things are 'the devil's work'? no. i said at least 51% of the country believes that, regardless of religious affiliation. 'the devil's work' was a term to describe how evil they (they being 51% of the country) think those things are.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

JohnTheHenchman

12-02-2004, 05:44 PM

free

12-02-2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Then why stop there, we might as well go socialist

I'm sorry, but I don't see how providing equal health care to everyone despite their social class could be considered socialist.

I personally consider it to be the right of every human on earth to be taken care of medically. It's not like I'm saying split the riches money to everyone.

JohnTheHenchman

12-02-2004, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by free
I'm sorry, but I don't see how providing equal health care to everyone despite their social class could be considered socialist.

I personally consider it to be the right of every human on earth to be taken care of medically. It's not like I'm saying split the riches money to everyone.

Because it's saying that I'm obligated to pay for someone else's healthcare.

free

12-02-2004, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Because it's saying that I'm obligated to pay for someone else's healthcare.

So, just fuck em, let em die?

If my $50 a pay checks helps someone get the medicine they need, or helps feed and clothe an elderly person, I consider that a valid sacrifice for me to make, to help ou humanity.

The greed that is present in some people (not referring to you, John) disgusts me so much, that I truly don't think we will make it another 2000 years.

We all need to live like the Star Trek universe. ;)

"The accumlation of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity."

JohnTheHenchman

12-02-2004, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by free
So, just fuck em, let em die?

If my $50 a pay checks helps someone get the medicine they need, or helps feed and clothe an elderly person, I consider that a valid sacrifice for me to make, to help ou humanity.

The greed that is present in some people (not referring to you, John) disgusts me so much, that I truly don't think we will make it another 2000 years.

We all need to live like the Star Trek universe. ;)

"The accumlation of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves, and the rest of humanity."

No thanks, taxes are high enough as it is, If I want any higher I'll just move to Canada or Europe.

But seriously now, while it is a well meaning thought, it is also an utopian one. Once we introduce the federal government into the business of healthcare, we will truly be fucking ourselves over.

free

12-02-2004, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
No thanks, taxes are high enough as it is, If I want any higher I'll just move to Canada or Europe.

But seriously now, while it is a well meaning thought, it is also an utopian one. Once we introduce the federal government into the business of healthcare, we will truly be fucking ourselves over.

Forget taxes, James Kirk and Jean-Luc Picard didn't even get a pay check!!! :D

And yes, unfortunatley we always find a way to mess up anything remotetly good, so no dice.

Lynn7

12-02-2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by free
The problem there is a person's right to receive medical services, whether they can afford these or not. If a poor woman doens't have the money, she still, by law, is required to have the same medical care as a person making seven figures. So, if abortion is considered a legal, medical practice, I don't see how they could not use tax dollars without violating that law.

Plastic surgery is legal but no one covers it for poor people. Money does enable people access to services not everyone can afford. I would strongly object to my tax money going for abortions but I have no problem with my tax money going to pay for medical expences for poor pregnant women. I would love my moeny to be used for them.

Lynn7

12-02-2004, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by darchangel

also, did i ever say CHRISTIANS believe those things are 'the devil's work'? no. i said at least 51% of the country believes that, regardless of religious affiliation. 'the devil's work' was a term to describe how evil they (they being 51% of the country) think those things are.

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

No. but the devil is in the Christian religion so when you said people attributing certain people to be the devil's work I made an inference. What other religion speaks of the devil? Either I'm not aware of any or I'm blanking out.

darchangel

12-03-2004, 12:12 PM

Lynn7

12-03-2004, 03:08 PM

oh, OK. I didn't realize it was just generic. ;)

jeo4

12-03-2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by darchangel
i don't even believe in god, and i use the term '[insert term here] is the devil!' all the time when i'm referring to something that's evil.

i could see how you think it could be a specific christian reference, but as i've already stated, i didn't mean it that way.

i'll just start saying '[insert term here] is Darth Vader', i guess...

:cool:

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

*GASP!!*

:eek:

*Hides helmet in shame*

:(

darchangel

12-03-2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by jeo4
*GASP!!*

:eek:

*Hides helmet in shame*

:(

i love you, jeo ;)

Through Like Crue

~darchangel~

TheDeadWalk

12-03-2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
No. but the devil is in the Christian religion so when you said people attributing certain people to be the devil's work I made an inference. What other religion speaks of the devil? Either I'm not aware of any or I'm blanking out.

I don't think the issue was to speak for Christians from sea to shining sea, but rather George Bush's interpretation of politics and what he believes God wants him to do as the American president. What George Bush and his cabinet see as immoral or to chastize it... "The Devil's Work" is what he will fight against, or rally the American people against. I'm pretty sure there's a significant number of Christians who voted for Kerry, Nader, or another third party candidate.

As for universal health care... I'm all for it. I don't like how insurance companies run everything, especially how hospitals are run.

Over the Summer, there was a woman who was in an auto accident and had to have a portion of her skull removed. She was given a special helmet to wear at night, and could not do a lot of body movement. The hospital refused to replace her skull due to the fact that she didn't have insurance nor a way to show that she could pay for her hospital fees. They sent her home.

(I'm struggling to find this story. It happened over the Summer in a mid-western state)

After the media got ahold of the case, the hospital felt like shit and took her back and put her under surgery for free. Why? Because what they did was absolutely fucking disgusting.

I don't think it's anywhere NEAR the concept of socialism. It's universal health care. The greater of the public good should outweigh here, and could be argued for with the ruling of Charles River Bridge Vs. Warren Bridge settlement.

I understand Adam Smith and the wealth of nations... but healthcare I do not believe should be looked upon as a capitalistic venture. You don't go to the hospital that has the better dollar menu. Instead, the only available market is one taken up by insurance companies who tell you "You pay us $250 dollars a month, and if you get sick, you pay the first $500. After that we'll pay 80%, and then after $1000 of that, we'll finally pay the full 100%."

Unless you work at a damn good entry level factory, or have a sound 30,000+/per year job, going to the hospital is worse than maxing out on your credit card. It shouldn't be like that. That causes the man having chest pains to continue driving down the interstate, the woman with stomach pains to keep working when she doesn't know she's pregnant, and the pilot to keep flying his aircraft because he never went to the doctor after a few of his episodes last month to find out he would be diagnosed as an epilleptic. Not only does it put the people that you DON'T care about at risk, but all of the above could in some way end up hurting you, or your loved ones. To me, it is in the same ballpark as drunk driving.

jeo4

12-03-2004, 04:45 PM

Well said, TheDeadWalk. I agree completely.

JohnTheHenchman

12-03-2004, 04:49 PM

Hey man, I don't like how hospitals are run either, but you really mean to tell me that the government would do a better job?

As it stands now, Fed Ex does a better job of delivering mail than the USPS. Generally, the more things the government is involved with, the worse those things are.

But hey, I'm an advocate of small government, which is why I couldn't stand Kerry or Bush.

badberry

12-03-2004, 08:53 PM

Its not a question of doing a better job running the hospital. It's a matter of health care being available to you when you need it, regardless of financial capacity. Being from Canada, where we've had universal public health care for nearly 40 years, I can't imagine anything else. If someone becomes injured or sick, they should have access to treatment, no matter what. Healthcare as a business seems sick and twisted.

EVILxxx

12-03-2004, 11:16 PM

In Massachusetts we have Mass health which pretty much guarentees Free Health care to all who need it. Our state is the most taxed in the country (Taxachusetts anyone?). My friend is a paramedic who has some stories that would blow your mind.
One such story is a 23 year old man who was complaining of "hand pain". he was asked to be taken to the hospital(an ambulance ride cost one thousand dollars). The man was on Mass-health and when my friend was checking his ID he had a High Rollers card from a casino.
Now I will agree that the healthcare system needs to be reworked but I would not want my taxes sky-high, like Canada.

TheDeadWalk

12-04-2004, 10:54 AM

Higher taxes is not nearly as significant as paying $200 per person in my house, while my girlfriend simply neglects to get insurance because they want her to pay over $300 a month. And that is the same plan that I am on.

(500 dollar deductible, then they pay 80% of the next 1000 dollars)

Hospital trips can range to around 500-700 dollars, and we all know that medicine is getting to be a bitch which can range at any price. Right now the elderly who cannot work continually bitch because they have no money after they spend it all on their medicines for the month.

This is ruining the economy. People would actually have MORE money if taxed, and didn't have to pay for their hospital visits.

Like I said before, Americans generally think "Taxes go away to the corrupt politicians pocket and help him buy booze, whores, and shit for his kids while I go broke." We literally have to turn the channel to CNN Global and watch the war in Iraq to see where our tax dollars are going. Very little do we ever get to see, or feel as a whole, the benefits that come to us from taxing. Taxing is us buying into something, and we choose our representatives that we think are going to have the proper grocery list setup for us.

I don't like the groceries Bush is buying us. Instead he's fighting for the "goodwill" of Iraqi people, while our own people are suffering from the sick ends of this health care.

You don't like extra taxes, but how would you like to be garnished 25% of your wages by a debt collecting law office because you couldn't afford to make the minimum monthly payment of $75 that they demanded you to pay of your $4,000 dollar hospital bill?

Tell me this shit isn't ruining the economy.

JohnTheHenchman

12-04-2004, 12:23 PM

It's not, though I'll admit blaming the economy on it is a pretty good scapregoat, kudos on that. My family is middle class, we used to do pretty well but sometime in the 90's (during Bill Clinton's era of economic bliss where everyone was happy) things went to shit. But you know what? My mother has a job with benefits, medical coverage is one of them. This summer, my father needed heart bypass surgery, and thanks be to private insurance everything went as smoothly as possible. You can't tell me that with the government involved that it will be anything more than increasingly complicated. I didn't want that, my father didn't want that.

Anyone who needs healthcare, get a job with benefits, hell I worked at Target and they had benefits, it's not that hard, really. And as a result we don't slowly transform into a socialist society.

EVILxxx

12-04-2004, 01:19 PM

What JohnTheHenchman said.
Countries with Free Health care have a nasty habit of delaying important surgeries simply because of the waiting list. And there is nothing you can do about it. No amount of money will get you your life saving surgery any quicker.
Free health care is definetly a big tradoff with a big payoff but I'm not convinced the payoff is worth it.

TheDeadWalk

12-04-2004, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
It's not, though I'll admit blaming the economy on it is a pretty good scapregoat, kudos on that. My family is middle class, we used to do pretty well but sometime in the 90's (during Bill Clinton's era of economic bliss where everyone was happy) things went to shit. But you know what? My mother has a job with benefits, medical coverage is one of them. This summer, my father needed heart bypass surgery, and thanks be to private insurance everything went as smoothly as possible. You can't tell me that with the government involved that it will be anything more than increasingly complicated. I didn't want that, my father didn't want that.

Anyone who needs healthcare, get a job with benefits, hell I worked at Target and they had benefits, it's not that hard, really. And as a result we don't slowly transform into a socialist society.

I'm sorry, but in my geographical area, there is layoffs galore. It IS that hard to get a job.

The main factory in this 'factory town' that I live in, has an individual company that is divided two plants. Last week and this week they(not counting others in this town) have laid off over 50 people, removed a few of the assembly lines, and will make the people work 12 hour days for 6 days a week. They would rather pay less people with overtime, then have three shifts of people and pay their very expensive COBRA plan insurance that I was on for a while thru my mother, which costed $275 a month while I was on it.

Get a job at Target? Are you kidding? Exactly how many bills does Target pay? Will it suffice for my girlfriend who is a single mother? Do you even get more than eight dollars an hour at target stocking the shelves?

This health system IS hurting the economy. When George Gusses attorney at law was garnishing my girlfriend, we didn't exactly have the money to go out and buy things. Because that's what helping the economy is... buying and selling things. The health insurance, pharmacies, and hospitals are raking in so much cash that could be going into the economy that it's fucking ridiculous.

I don't think it's a scapegoat.

I understand where you are coming from, and you feel that anything government run is unstable and insecure, where as I feel that I would benefit from it.

I like the post office. I don't think that they are clusterfucked. They have internal problems, and are subject to error as is any government run facility, or corporate owned facility.

Burger King isn't government run, but sometimes they still can't make me a fucking whopper without lettuce and tomato.

I put trust in government run sanctions for the good of the people. There comes a time when you put Adam Smith's book down and look at certain 'market factors' and wage a decision on whether it is morally or ethically wrong to have them as a part of the market.

Should we charge .25 cents for every stop sign we see? Should we sell little punch cards to have 100 stops for $15?

Or should we just do away with all taxes, and go back to the system before taxing? That is, everyone in society takes a turn at doing the city and state jobs. One week out of every month you do 8 hours of civil service, whether it be firefighting, policing, repairing the street, etc. Plus at the same time, you have to work your eight hours at your job whether it be at a factory or Target. Doesn't matter if you know anything about the above jobs, just as long as you get your civil service time in for the city.

Here's a beautiful comment from someone in one of my local papers yesterday.

So New Philadelphia is losing 29 police officers and crossing guards, three firefighters, park police, the fireworks and Summer Showcase, but everything’s OK because nobody’s taxes will go up. Listen, we pay taxes for a reason. We get services for them. If you won’t pay, services will go down.

http://www.timesreporter.com/archive/left_archive.php?ID=36166&r=1&Category=6

In the same column, here's a few moronic responses:

I am boycotting every store in New Philadelphia until the mayor rehires the safety forces. If we all boycott every business, the owners will put such pressure on the city administration that the mayor and his cohorts will have to rehire the safety forces and lay off less-necessary people.

Oh, and here's a better one:

New Philadelphia is punishing us for being bad little taxpayers by laying off all these firefighters and police officers and cutting out everything extra for our children, like crossing guards, park police and even fireworks. Meanwhile, not one of the pencil-pushing bureaucrats’ jobs or departments has been touched.

Yes folks, sadly we announce that THE FUCKING COUNTY COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN LAID OFF. SORRY.

JohnTheHenchman

12-04-2004, 01:41 PM

Hate to sound insensitive, but move to Canada. I don't see why my tax dollars should go to pay for the health insurance of someone who abuses their body, chain smokes for fifty years, is obese, etc. I want my money to pay for myself.

And yes, I'm willing to pay taxes for the benefit of society, but that just does not include healthcare. Socialism is garbage. It looks good to people who are in a hard time, but it's really a load of shit.

And I was using Target as an example. MOST JOBS HAVE BENEFITS. Lots of people just don't look for jobs, why the hell should that be my problem?

TheDeadWalk

12-04-2004, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Hate to sound insensitive, but move to Canada. I don't see why my tax dollars should go to pay for the health insurance of someone who abuses their body, chain smokes for fifty years, is obese, etc. I want my money to pay for myself.

And yes, I'm willing to pay taxes for the benefit of society, but that just does not include healthcare. Socialism is garbage. It looks good to people who are in a hard time, but it's really a load of shit.

And I was using Target as an example. MOST JOBS HAVE BENEFITS. Lots of people just don't look for jobs, why the hell should that be my problem?

Move to Canada? I'd rather keep voting and hope that one day you will have to pay more taxes, and then tell you to move. As for moving, there are too many fringe benefits for my girlfriend, her daughter and I to stay where we are at, and too many drawbacks if we moved into a country in which we know absolutely nobody. Uprooting isn't a solution.

Using tax dollars isn't socialism.

You look at people that abuse their bodies, chain smoke, etc. because you are picturing 'worst case scenarios', and stereotyping it into a pessimistic bunch. I would argue for more sad, tragic cases.

How do you like your money going to insurance benefits? The insurance that your company provides comes out of their pockets, which would otherwise result in you getting paid more.

As for "MOST JOBS HAVE BENEFITS", I beg to differ. Most GOOD jobs have benefits. The bulk of non-factory jobs have supplemental insurance, or insurance so horrible that you have to meet an unrealistic deductable before the insurance company steps in to pay shares.

Lots of people don't look for jobs? Are you kidding me? This statement is correct, but there are MORE people currently unemployed or invisibly unemployed. People are getting laid off, and the President says that "The unemployment rate is going down." Well yes, of course, because you only are listed as unemployed for the sum total of SIX months that you receive unemployment checks.

You can go back to work at a new factory, wal-mart, target, etc., but you have to have so many months under your belt before your unemployment resets itself to start six more months of payments. So if you go to another factory and get laid off in three months, then you go back to having as many unemployment weeks as you had remaining when you got the job. If you had no unemployment check weeks left, then you are totally fucked. And you aren't considered "technically unemployed". It's a complicated, clusterfucked system ruled by political vocabulary to have people misunderstand its meaning.

How are people supposed to go from the factory that was paying them $19.50 an hour with benefits, supposed to live on $8 an hour at Wal-Mart with Wal-Mart benefits, let alone meet deductible requirements if they need surgery or have an E.R. appointment?

For around the same amount that you are missing out on now by having your company pay your insurance, the entire country could be provided for. It isn't socialism, or communism, hence it is something that the country in itself is paying for.

What you're bordering on is darwinism, and that's far from cool. A "Why the fuck should I care" is something that you are likely to hear from someone else when you get slammed by a similar situation at some point in your life when you get laid off with three children, and have to take them all to the emergency room because of the severe flu epidemic that's going around.

Doctors and hospitals shouldn't even be a business. It shouldn't be a profit enterprise like Microsoft, Sony, or Procter & Gamble.

And as said before, the economy is missing out on numerous profit that could be attained... but only if people didn't have to pay $5,000 hospital bills. Seriously, they have to actually pay the price for each individual instrument that touches them, cuts them, or goes up their ass. It's a complete bogus and corrupt system that is depriving Americans of billion of dollars every year. Especially from the elderly who can't afford to pay anything but for medicine and doctor's visits.

You're also looking at it as if it's helping someone else and will never ever be something that you can take advantage of. It's your problem when you look at your future and think about the intangibles that can hit you when you realize that life in itself can create fuck ups, instead of people that just fuck up. You seem to think that people create all of these problems onto theirselves and would have been solved if they just knew what they were doing and kept a good attitude.

That's not the way the world works.

If you want, ask schmoe McDonald. He just got permenantly laid off after being called back for two months from one of the factories I mentioned earlier. His unemployment will run out soon from previous unemployment, but I'm sure him and the other 50 people from that factory plus the rest in the tri-county area without a job that are struggling to find one will be able to pay for their healthcare, house, car, and other monthly bill payments if they just keep a good attitude and keep looking for a job! Assuming from you, there are plenty of great paying jobs with benefits so he shouldn't be depressed at all.

TheDeadWalk

12-04-2004, 06:57 PM

This is amazing.

www.southeasternohiohelpwanted.com

"Long name... amazing results!"

It has 20 jobs for the entire area. Several of them "Work at home!" scams where you have to pay money for bogus kits to become an at-home carnie, one is to "Work for E-Bay!", and a few others you actually have to be an accountant, or have a Bachelor's of Arts degree to get. A couple of CDL truck driving jobs, and that one very special... clamp truck operator for the general factory worker who can operate heavy machinery.

Great jobs with benefits out there.

JohnTheHenchman

12-04-2004, 10:01 PM

And I do feel bad, don't get me wrong. Just because I'm fiscally conservative it does not mean I am not compassionate. My family has gone through great financial difficulties, but you know my parents never cried about it, expect the government to hand them stuff. My mother got a job as a bartender, and she actually has pretty good benefits because of that. As for my father, he's one of those small business owners who would have been hurt if Kerry had indeed been elected.

And so, you say it's bad that I have a darwinist attitude. Why? Humans are nothing but at animals, we are no better and it is survival of the fittest. This is not to say that I'm not a charitible person, for I am, but I'd like to choose my charity thank you.

I come from a family who's had very hard times financially, so it's not like I'm some snot nosed spoonfed college kid, no, most of my peers are pretty liberal in all of their views. Anyway, coming from a humble background, I say, if we have gotten by without socialism helping us, why can't anyone else?

There is no need for universal health care. There are people who are rich enough to afford it, there are those with private insurance, and I'm pretty sure at most hospitals you can apply for charity care.

Yeah, so maybe I do believe in survival of the fittest, and maybe in your opinion that makes me an insensitive asshole, but you know what? I really don't care. It's my point of view, it makes sense to me, it does not have to make sense to anyone else. Universal healthcare makes no sense to me, but I'm not going to go to great lengths to change your opinion as you have with me.

Lynn7

12-04-2004, 10:54 PM

If jobs get scarce it is time to move, IMO. Or to create your own venture. Necessity is the mother of invention or so it goes. The problem I have is that our society has become so passive. If htings don't drop into people's laps they look for someone to blame. And no one wants to pay for any health care- they all want the government to pay. Many people who could get insurance choose not to because they are young and healthy and then if something happens they get mad and blame the system. I happen to think it is the insurance companies who drove the health care costs sky high by not encouranging competition or looking for cheaper ways to provide care. I would hate to see the gov run health care. That would be awful. I think Bush has a good idea when he says small companies should be allowed to buy cheap health care insurance by joining to gether as one etitiy. That would be good, IMO.At least Bush is trying to look for some unique ways out of this mess.

free

12-04-2004, 11:53 PM

If jobs get scarce it is time to move, IMO. Or to create your own venture.

1. If you don't have a job, how would you afford to move, or rent/buy a house/apt.

2. It costs even more to try to start your own business.

3. In America, to feed your family and make a living, you shouldn't have to be a hunter-gatherer.

jeo4

12-04-2004, 11:54 PM

It pains me to read some of this. Move, Lynn? Really...well you used to be a Democrat and you've changed to a Republican and you live in Massachussetts. So it must be time to move. If this notion makes you stop and scratch your head, then you understand how many people who are lifelong citizens of their home towns must feel about the condescending comments you typed in that last post. People have roots where they live. Family. Homes. Lives. And the answer here sure as hell isn't to move when jobs are being shipped OVERSEAS to third world nations that will do the same work for less than half the wages. Most Americans don't have the capital to start their own business, let alone keep it solvent. 90 percent of all small businesses fail. Not worldwide, just in America. I'm tired of the automatic assumption that joblessness is the fault of the unemployed, as opposed to the greedy assholes running the show. When outsourcing stops and job growth begins again, I might think differently. There is a company here in Kansas City *coughSPRINTcough* that has laid off workers by multiple thousands, but paid a CEO a severance package worth millions. And he's still advising them!! Now don't tell me the solution is to move since Sprint is corrupt. Because my instant reply is WHERE?? To Enron?! How about Wal-Mart or Target, which are buying more than ever from overseas? It's nowhere near as easy as you make it out to be.

I've been fortunate to have the same job with benefits and a retirement plan for the last fifteen years. But even then, I know that nothing lasts forever. I deserve more than to worry about my job being outsourced to another company or country and being laid off with nothing. Now when I hear all this bullshit about small businesses getting together as one entity to buy insurance, my first question is "What about all the poor saps who just got their ass handed to them by multi-billion dollar corporations and have no way to pay for shit? Are you going to help them find jobs and a way to pay for their very lives, or are they pretty much forced into temp agencies where benefits are non-existent, wages are piss poor and they have no hope of paying their own bills?" George Bush hasn't addressed a bloody thing here. And to put it bluntly, if Donald Rumsfeld is the only cabinet member to stay on board for the second term, that tells me a shitload about how little the last cabinet agreed with the President on anything. And it tells me that the war machine is alive and kicking. Now how about some jobs and a financial future, Mr. President?!

Oh and while I'm still scraping at that fresh wound, how the fuck do people move when they have nothing with which to move? Hmmm?! Or is that reserved for people with money, too? Suddenly, this doesn't look like the land of the free. It looks like it's all pretty much bought and paid for. And that includes healthcare.

Lynn7

12-05-2004, 03:40 PM

You know, here in the US we live in Fantasy Land. Our poor are rich as compared to people in other countries. Of course it is wonderful to stay near family and friends but if you are unable to make a living then you have to become a hunter gatherer so to speak unless your family or freinds decide to subsidize you for a while. I am not being heartless here. My family had to move for a job once and then we decided to come back when an opportunity opened up here again. My ancestors came her from other countries with nothing and had menial jobs and no health insurance.and these aren't far off ancestors- it is my grandparents I am speaking of.

Look around and see the ingenuity of some of our citizens who start businesses on a shoe string. There is plenty of hard work to be found but many do not want to work hard. Try to get a house roofed. There is hardly anyone who does it and the ones who do it are often not showing up for work or doing sloppy jobs. I know this because I have lots of freinds who have had trouble with this- I often think if I was ever in a position to need money I could roof houses and make a fortune by simply showing up and doing a OK job- then I would be a shining star in my field.

Bush keeps trying to suggest that if some jobs are drying up and going over seas then it might be time to learn something new. He si so right. People who are not willing to make changes to adapt to new situations will not be able to survive. People are not willing to move to decrease their lifestyle and they do not want to give up any luxuries. Some people who are supposedly poor have money for cell phones- simply amazing!!!

Yes, there are some people who are in bad circumstances due to sickness or bad luck but that is when people should reach out and give help but if a jobless situation continues it is irresposible for a healthy jobless person not to begin looking in other geographical areas. It is what everyone else in the world has always done.we are a very spoiled country. I am so glad that rich or poor I live in country where I have free speeech and freedom of movement and opportunity. I might open a hot dog stand tommorrow and get bought out for my special chilli recipe and become a millionaire- anything is possible in the US right? Don't buy into the defeatism that is so prevalent in our time.

TheDeadWalk

12-05-2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
I'm not going to go to great lengths to change your opinion as you have with me.

WALTER: What do you mean "brought it bowling"? I didn't rent it shoes. I'm not buying it a fucking beer. He's not gonna take your fucking turn, Dude. -- The Big Lebowski.

Just to clear things up before they get anymore hot, I don't aim to change your views. I aim to debate, and shoot as much non-insulting (your a poo poo head) material to fire my point across. I don't aim to change, or to get you to teach the world to sing and buy everyone a coke.

I just see these comments as "Survival of the fittest" for Americans, and I think... don't we call policy inside of America, "domestic" policy? And isn't domestic synonymous with family? And while we're at it, all policy made for overseas is referred to foreign policy?

If so, then I don't agree with telling Americans to "Fuck off"® (copyright, Dick Cheney) while $86 Billion dollars is being given to the Iraqi people to rebuild their country. Nor the millions of dollars in aid going to the middle east (Israel especially, and Jordan even though they fucking HATE America.), millions going to Euro-countries that can't support themselves enough, and of course the crumbling Southern American countries who can't even have elections without burning down 100 houses. Or the United States military bases in Finland, Japan, Germany, etc. so on and so forth.

All of that, I consider socialism long before I would having taxes deducted from my paycheck to pay for my healthcare. In this system, the American people are supporting one another, while Ethiopians would still get delivered boxes upon boxes of food and bottled water. Sanitation devices, and condoms for every African with a hard on. That I feel is beyond socialism. That's borderline divine intervention from Jesus Christ himself.

If 1 million American people die in 2005 because they cannot afford their surgeries or are turned away by hospitals, I feel that is just as bad as 6 million people being gassed, shot, diseased, or tortured by Hitler. One you're putting the gun to someone's head, the other your just telling them to go home and hope that in the next life they can come out of Paris Hilton's cunt.

And to Lynn,

Yeah I think Free and Jeo touched on this, and that's that you can't really move anywhere when you don't have any money. Especially if you were born poor or middle class and was refused student loans, or considered not to have a high enough High School GPA to get a scholarship or financial aid to go to college, or if you did get financial aid, it wasn't but enough to wipe your ass with. So there you are, with your wife and 1.5 children, having been laid off on the job you worked at for the last 10 years, which means you are uninsured, and can't find a job. You can't pay rent, you do odd jobs like work at Wal Mart where you don't have enough to pay rent, gas mileage, and buy groceries for the entire month, let alone electric, gas, clothing, hygeine, school fees, etc.

It would be nice to move from say, South Carolina to North Carolina where that one factory is hiring 30 people for the introduction of their new assembly line, but you don't have enough money to make a down payment for a house to rent in North Carolina, or the security deposit which is just 2 times the rent for the first month you are there, PLUS get the electricity, gas, gas mileage, food, expenses that it would take to get there and get set up. And if you are leaving because you are swamped, you likely owe money on some of these monthly bills so American Electric and Columbia Gas may tell you to pay off your delinquent debts before they will turn on anything in the house.

And do keep in mind, there is no guarantee that you're hired. But you just moved away from your hometown where your mother across town would give you twenty dollars to help you out now and again, and all of your friends and former co-workers who had great reputations in the tri-county area as great references. Not a good idea. It's not like monopoly where you can go from Boardwalk to St. Charles' Place in two turns.

TheDeadWalk

12-05-2004, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7

Some people who are supposedly poor have money for cell phones- simply amazing!!!

we are a very spoiled country. I am so glad that rich or poor I live in country where I have free speeech and freedom of movement and opportunity. I might open a hot dog stand tommorrow and get bought out for my special chilli recipe and become a millionaire- anything is possible in the US right? Don't buy into the defeatism that is so prevalent in our time.

Verizon wireless has a 30 dollar/month plan, 300 minutes, after 9 pm and all weekends are free minutes, even long distance. And you get to take the phone with you incase you get... stranded or your piece of shit 250 ford escort breaks down!

Sounds a lot better than SBC's 30 dollar/month landline plan, with 10 cents a minute for long distance, and you can maybe take the dog outside to potty and talk to someone if you have a 10 dollar portable phone, but not much farther than that.

You say we are a very spoiled country, and in some ways, yes we are. But I also think we spoil foreign countries by giving them billions (trillion(s)?) of dollars a year for nothing. That's not teaching them to adapt and learn.

It's not defeatism I don't think, I think it's just what you personally feel is right or wrong. The woman that lost a piece of her skull in an auto accident and the Dr.'s sent her home and refused her surgery because she didn't have health insurance... to me, that was just sickening. I think about myself if I were in the same unfortunate situation, and it makes me sick.

Lynn7

12-05-2004, 04:11 PM

I would agree with you except for one thing- I see poor people who live in the north end of my neighboring city all the time. They live in homes their kids have clothes and they are not starving. How do they do it? and who are all these people who work at Walmart? How on earth do they survive on those wages? They seem well fed and they smile and their teeth are not rotted nor do they have festering wounds.

Look I do know people who have had hard times and I have even had very hard times as a kid. but I know that we are often prisoners of our own making.sometimes we need to start over and things don't always work out the way we had planned but some of the biggest success stories come from people who were coming out of failed situations.

If I was a man with a wife and 2 kids and I lost my job and the house was about to be repossed I would redeem what I could out of the situation- move to a cheap apartment and get any job or maybe two menial jobs and I would work like crasy so I could get promoted or whatever. I would have my wife maybe take in kids to babysit or do luandry or sell Tupperware etc, or maybe work the nightshift. I would be looking for a better job and if I had to I would leave my family for a while to make more money elsewhere and when I was situated I would send for them and start anew. Those are some things I would do off the top of my head.

and for people who are sick and cannot get out of their situations then there is plenty of help for them from the government. In fact sometimes you have to be really porr befroe the government benefits strt to kick in and those people can get the finest of care. For instance my grandomother has to spend down all of her savings before the government will pay for her nursing home bills or for her oxygen. That is only fair. She has to get poor before she can access great free healthcare. My cousin has CP and he gets great healthcare and serivces though his family is poor. Our country does not let poor people starve. The people have to refuse to get help for that to happen. Alcoholics, people addicted to drugs and the mentally ill are the ones at risk for this cause they don't have to abilty to make good decisions for themselves- and these people's kids are also at risk.but they can all get help. if not from the governemnt than from all the church groups around. I'm sorry but I am a conservative for these reasons. I beleive that life is full of opportunity and and that people should help people and if you see someone in need who is suffereing you should reach into your pocket and help them or make the calls for them etc to hook them up according to their need. That is the kind of stuff that makes life great. People who need people are the luckiest people in the world-or so the song goes!

free

12-05-2004, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
Yeah, so maybe I do believe in survival of the fittest, and maybe in your opinion that makes me an insensitive asshole, but you know what? I really don't care. It's my point of view, it makes sense to me, it does not have to make sense to anyone else. Universal healthcare makes no sense to me, but I'm not going to go to great lengths to change your opinion as you have with me.

I understand what you are saying, and normally I hate to get into hypothetical arguments, but what if your mother was the one who couldn't afford healthcare.

You could try to help her, but hospital bills get outrageous, (I once had a wreck that messed up my neck a little. My parents drove me to the hospital, and I got 3 x-rays and a muscle relaxer, and the bill was over $3,000). If you couldn't help her, and she made too much for help (and too much is like $15,000 a year), would you want her to succumb to Darwin's survival theory?

Two great quotes, the first from Marlyn Manson, and the second from Commander Riker, (yeah I know :rolleyes: ;))

"The death of one is a tragedy; the death of millions is just a statistic."

and

"If the pain cut as deep for a stranger as a loved one, I think that human history would have been a lot less bloody."

TheDeadWalk

12-05-2004, 04:37 PM

Most of what you said Lynn, actually does make sense.

However, where we may be cris-crossing here in the wrong direction is that I'm not saying that the poor should be looking for a handout, or ask for assistance. I just think that this is an issue that society and the government should begin working on to help its sons and daughters out. Billions and billions of dollars going to hospitals and insurance companies is money that could be best spent elsewhere in the American economy.

Our Presidential cabinet jumps at the sound of financing another country's election, food, defense, or capital investment, but they look at universal health care as a sin for their own people.

The whole "Bush says..." game doesn't work for me. Small business uniting to change the market into a new equilibrium for cheap health care........WHAT?!?!?!

That's why I'm not a republican. They take all of these theoretical examples, and make predictions to say that "If you do X, then you should get Y." I don't buy that assumption and I never will, whether it be about tax cuts, or cheaper health care. They go out around the issue and try to find the most complicated way to skin a cat, instead of just holding it down with a knife and going to town.

If you fail at what the republicans tell you to do, its obviously not their plan that was at fault, it was you. Anytime their prediction doesn't turn out right, we assume that it's the people's fault. They're lazy. They're poor and have cell phones. "Look at them down the street, how are they poor?" We point fingers without even knowing the person, or just take that one person (or even 500) and assume it to be the general assumption of poor people in America.

I don't naturally assume that people are bad. I don't naturally assume that people are lazy. I do think everyone is capable of everything, including self-neglect, but I don't let that individual ability be my blindfold for looking people in the eyes and telling them "I'm sorry, there's nothing I can do, It's not my problem, I don't care, deal with it, etc."

I just can't pull up to the trailer park where a misfortunate father who is unemployed and doesn't have health insurance so he can't get his liver transplant, knock on his door, look at him, his wife, and his kids and say "Sorry. It's not Americas problem. It's yours. Would your son like to sign up for the Army?"

And that's why charities don't work. Because you can turn the channel when St. Judes hospital comes on, or you can walk past the salvation army bucket at Christmas time. You can avoid looking these people in the eyes and think about the supposed poor girl that everyone at First Baptist is talking about who somehow ended up with a pair of Phat Pharm shoes for her birthday, and smite the fact that your somehow inadvertently paying for her meals in your paycheck.

JohnTheHenchman

12-05-2004, 06:51 PM

TheDeadWalk, I'll be honest with you, I'm from New Jersey, a state that never really has an absolutely horrid economy atleast to the extent that thousands upon thousands are losing jobs. So in that respect, I cannot relate to you. But to be quite honest, IIf it ever did happen to my family and myself, I would deal with it.

The economy can never be perfect. But you know, we just have to deal with it. How did my Grandparents live through the Great Depression? The thing is, it gets better.

But I'm sorry, I can never advocate such an idea as universal healthcare. I mean, look at the public school system? Do we really want government taking control of this, too? From various people I know who work at hospitals, the hospitals actually operate in the red and not in the black.

This is a capitalist society. I don't understand how hard that is to grasp. This has been a capitalist society as long as we've been here. It's not going to change and it shouldn't. Giving the government too much control over everything would be our downfall. Government is big enough as it is, Bush is a true conservative, he's a big government big spender kind of guy. That shits upon everything that conservatism stands for.

Anyway, I do hope things get better, but look, there were people with problems before, and government didn't subsidize healthcare for them then, why should it now?

TheDeadWalk

12-05-2004, 07:20 PM

No, the economy will never be perfect. But it always will need its tweaks and pinches here and there to grow with the everchanging times.

The Great Depression was solved because of government intervention.

look at the public school system? Do we really want government taking control of this, too?

The thing is, if inflation rates keep rising and people keep voting down school levies, this is the only other choice. This, and of course grant money from Coca-Cola or Pepsi. (Which of course people will bitch about and then say that is why kids are fat)

12 miles from my home, the school district has had 4 levies in a row, all four declined even though the district was practically on hands and knees begging over the last two. In mid December, one of their elementary schools will close down, and all the children will be bulked into one of the other elementaries, doubling the ratio of children per classroom. If things like this happen and keep happening, we could see more State intervention with the schools.

This is a capitalist society. I don't understand how hard that is to grasp.

I understand capitalism and socialism as well as any other person with a completed social studies concentration at the collegiate level.

I also understand that for being such a capitalist society, we give away billions to trillions of freebie dollars to foreign countries just for breathing every year. I bet McDonalds can't use the catchphrase "I'm lovin it" in Jordan, because it's likely the catchphrase of the Jordan government everytime they look at their bank account with American dollars.

government didn't subsidize healthcare for them then, why should it now?

Just because a wrong wasn't fixed in the past doesn't mean something shouldn't be done about it ever.

You seem to not like to have extra taxes taken out of your paycheck, so I assume you like to make as much money as you can.

A COBRA plan 80-20 Health insurance that my mother has, costs $275 for a 23 year old individual. A family of four, that would equal a monetary value of $1,100 per month! The company my mother works for actually pays for this, and assuming that they pay (or pay close to) the same amount for all covered persons working for the company, then they are paying over 1,000 dollars a month in insurance for every four person family that works there, less if single or no children (or gay!), and more if someone has a lot of people covered under their insurance.

Now my question is, 1,100 for every family with two children for this standard-union insurance package is going to equal a whole hell of a lot. What would the company do with its money if it didn't have to pay all of these insurance companies?

1.) The CEOS pocket it and hang out with Alec Baldwin.

2.) Invest into more assembly lines, machinery, etc. by adding new capital or hiring more people

3.) Raise wages throughout the company

As long as they don't do option #1, the people ultimately benefit. More jobs or more money, regardless. I also highly doubt that any four member family would have one worker pay over $1,100 in taxes in any given month, unless they were in the upper class.

People won't be spending money on insurance companies, there could be more jobs created, and there is a logical choice for companies to give its employees a raise.

I think that beats the theory that you're paying for a country of fat people that lay on the couch eating potato chips and do not want to work.

JohnTheHenchman

12-05-2004, 08:47 PM

Well, if you didn't know, I am a Libertarian, and I identify myself as one because I this shit like you pointed out, giving tons of money to other countries, is just plain old wrong. It's one thing to help a friend in need, it's another thing to just give these countries tons of money...for no reason. So I'm with you there.

However, I don't think that taxes need to be raised, no instead it would be more productive to reform the system see where the money is being mismanaged, and correct those errors.

I still fail to see how Universal Healthcare is good. The government in control of anything it shouldn't be, is just awful, but I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree, because no matter what I'm not going to change my mind on healthcare, and I'm not a rich person either, I just think that all in all it's an awful idea.

jeo4

12-06-2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Lynn7
I would agree with you except for one thing- I see poor people who live in the north end of my neighboring city all the time. They live in homes their kids have clothes and they are not starving. How do they do it? and who are all these people who work at Walmart? How on earth do they survive on those wages? They seem well fed and they smile and their teeth are not rotted nor do they have festering wounds.

Look I do know people who have had hard times and I have even had very hard times as a kid. but I know that we are often prisoners of our own making.sometimes we need to start over and things don't always work out the way we had planned but some of the biggest success stories come from people who were coming out of failed situations.

If I was a man with a wife and 2 kids and I lost my job and the house was about to be repossed I would redeem what I could out of the situation- move to a cheap apartment and get any job or maybe two menial jobs and I would work like crasy so I could get promoted or whatever. I would have my wife maybe take in kids to babysit or do luandry or sell Tupperware etc, or maybe work the nightshift. I would be looking for a better job and if I had to I would leave my family for a while to make more money elsewhere and when I was situated I would send for them and start anew. Those are some things I would do off the top of my head.

and for people who are sick and cannot get out of their situations then there is plenty of help for them from the government. In fact sometimes you have to be really porr befroe the government benefits strt to kick in and those people can get the finest of care. For instance my grandomother has to spend down all of her savings before the government will pay for her nursing home bills or for her oxygen. That is only fair. She has to get poor before she can access great free healthcare. My cousin has CP and he gets great healthcare and serivces though his family is poor. Our country does not let poor people starve. The people have to refuse to get help for that to happen. Alcoholics, people addicted to drugs and the mentally ill are the ones at risk for this cause they don't have to abilty to make good decisions for themselves- and these people's kids are also at risk.but they can all get help. if not from the governemnt than from all the church groups around. I'm sorry but I am a conservative for these reasons. I beleive that life is full of opportunity and and that people should help people and if you see someone in need who is suffereing you should reach into your pocket and help them or make the calls for them etc to hook them up according to their need. That is the kind of stuff that makes life great. People who need people are the luckiest people in the world-or so the song goes!

I don't live with a defeatest attitude, but you're definitely not grounded in reality if you think people aren't out there busting ass now. And how do you think people who've had their houses repossessed are going to qualify for an apartment with bad credit from said repo? This isn't negotiable. Life shouldn't be negotiable. Jobs shouldn't be negotiable. Someone's health shouldn't be negotiable. Yeah, we live in a land of opportunity. What alarms me here is that, even as a conservative myself, I see jobs literally evaporating. I see businesses absolutely screwing employees and customers alike. Ane nobody gets a fair shake because corporations have complete control. What's worse...government control, or no control at all?

You can make your argument about "cell phones" which to me is only stupid because (as TheDeadWalk mentioned) they are often cheaper than regular phones and they are mobile for emergency situations. Lord forbid poor people think practically, though, because ignorant assumptions are made that they use the system and have "modern conveniences"...funny, that seems to be the only way they can afford to communicate. And how about small businesses that use them to conduct business with customers? HMMM? Poor people using some of that yankee ingenuity you're referring to. Wow...that's almost AMERICAN!

I live far from my family now because all the work is in town, although they all work menial jobs because it's all that's available. They can't afford to move back to the city where housing has ballooned and jobs of any kind (even bad ones) are still scarce. There's no practical point to it. And it's pretty insulting to assume that people can just up and blow their lives off because corporations have decided to fuck with everything for their own personal gain. Who are you to decide who moves and who doesn't? Immigrants came to America to find a better life. I understand that. But when people who have history in their homes and family surrounding them, it's pretty rude and thoughtless to uproot someone in the name of a minimum wage job in the city. It doesn't make any sense to them or to their family, who has to settle for so much less.

And quite frankly, Bush hasn't done jack shit to fix the economic and health problems in America. Instead of trying to create new governments overseas, he needs to be worrying about the growing domestic issues here. The Taliban is gone and Al Qaeda is decimated since America paid Afghanistan a visit. We need to fix what's wrong right here right now, and leave the world to handle itself. And if we're attacked again, we do what we have to do when it's necessary and not before. There's too much at stake to be out fighting and not tending to the problems we have at home.

JohnTheHenchman

12-06-2004, 04:44 PM

How is what most of what you said Bush's fault? Sure the horrible war situation is attributed to him, but he's not a law maker, he is not a part of the legislative branch of government. Regardless of whether any of us agree on anything (which it's clear that I'm in a disagreement with several of you) if we do not elect progressive (or our idea of progressive, which by the way no matter how you paint it no george bush conservative is progressive, although there are progressive republicans) candidates to Senate and House of Representatives, then what's the point, they're the ones that are really making the laws.

jeo4

12-06-2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
How is what most of what you said Bush's fault? Sure the horrible war situation is attributed to him, but he's not a law maker, he is not a part of the legislative branch of government. Regardless of whether any of us agree on anything (which it's clear that I'm in a disagreement with several of you) if we do not elect progressive (or our idea of progressive, which by the way no matter how you paint it no george bush conservative is progressive, although there are progressive republicans) candidates to Senate and House of Representatives, then what's the point, they're the ones that are really making the laws.

I never said most of it was Bush's fault, but he is in a very strong position to push legislation that will stop some of the actions of corrupt corporations. And you'll get no argument from me about Congress. We need changes and soon.

Lynn7

12-08-2004, 08:30 AM

I think the reason our government gives money to other countires and does not worry about our poor is becasue they know we have tons of programs here for our poor. Also if we went to gov health care our system would soon suck as John the H said.

I do hate taklking in generalties but when I speak of specific instances I am accused of giving anecdotal evidence. I just can't win. The cell phone thing. The poor people I see using cell phones are not using them cause they are cheaper. I see how they are dressed and I hear them when they talk.

I have also known people who are really down on their luck and they do not have cell phones or cable and they do not buy new clothes at the store. These people are usually the ones who have lost jobs and are in a bad situation for a time and those are the ones who need the help of friends and family becasue they do not tend to go on Welfare.

There is a difference between the people who are short term poor and long term poor. The people who are long term poor can access lots of government programs that are very helpful. Many choose not to impove their level of living. As I've mentioned before some take advantage of free tuition to community college only to cut classes and never do their homework. I've seen it first hand.

Anyway, as far as people having to move to get jobs sometimes it is just a necessity if jobs dry up in an area. If people want to continue staying in an area without jobs that is their option. I would not be in favor of making people move. But, if they choose to stay stop whining about it. They can try to make their own opportunities, cleaning houses, mowing lwans, selling hotdogs, developing ebay accounts and selling on line? whatever. They can't keep waiting for stuff to fall in their laps and get mad when it doesn't happen. Lfe just isn't fair and wishing doens't make it happen. We have to deal with life the way it is.

I just think there has been a faulty mindset in this country of entitilement and when I see people who are TRULY starving in other countries I feel sad that we have it so good here and yet we do not appreciate it. The money that congress sends to other countries often keeps people from REALLY dying in the streets.

You do make a good point about liver transplants though. There are a lot of medical procedures that are available to the people who have money as opposed to the poor and that is also a fact of life. If I do not have insurance there is a good chance the gov may not choose to pay for me to have one if I need it. It is sad that our money does not always keep up with medical advances.

See as a Christian, I also hate the injustices of the world and look forward to a world where there will be no sickness or poverty and no injustice. And I follow a God who loves the poor and does not favor the rich and sent his own son here as a lowly carpenter, not as a king.

jeo4

12-09-2004, 12:04 PM

But see, Lynn, this didn't really solve anything. How would God feel about people not getting health care because they couldn't afford it? How would God respond when he hears that people should be forced to move from their homes and give up everything they have because corporations have outsourced their work? Or that the jobs have dried up in the area because a factory was shut down to make it's stockholders rich even though it would close the business forever? The big picture here is being missed. It's easy to say "my values are based on my religion, and God loves the poor", but that's lip service. Why? Because it doesn't solve the problem. It simply says "Hey, I believe in Jesus and I'm exempt from caring what those poor people are going through. There are plenty of programs to take care of them." Yeah? Like what?

I live in a midwestern city where the cost of living is very low compared to the rest of the country. Housing was at one time the cheapest of the entire nation. So if a family is just scraping by on the wages offered, how do they afford to move? How do they survive with nothing financially to offer?

Healthcare in this nation is hitting record highs. And medical plans are designed to keep doctors paid and insurance companies paid more. People who have no insurance are simply discahrged. And you can say that there are programs to help this, but the problem is that they cater to the destitute and nobody else. If you suddenly find yourself out of work and with chronic health issues, you don't qualify for ANYTHING because you made too much money in the last year. If you're a diabetic, no insulin. If you're a heart patient, no blood pressure medication. If you have to wait for months on end for help, then you may not be alive to see it.

Where is the care for the people who are out there busting ass on a daily basis then get their walking papers at year-end saying that they are being laid off? They are ruined because of it. And they lose everything they've worked so hard for...the house, the car, the retirement plan...then they have no way to support themselves, no way to get to a job, and no roof over their heads when it get's too cold to stay outside. They need the help most of all.

A stunning 357,000 people just filed for unemployment last month. Unemployment rates in America are at six percent, which isn't exactly terrible on the surface, but that actually accounts for 16 million-plus unemployed Americans. That's awful. And the programs that exist are inadequate. We pay taxes, but they get handed to the government. The cash gets wasted on ridiculous things. Congress is very much to blame for this, as they are the ones who approve the budget. And the White House can boost the process by proposing plans to implement changes in the job market, in corporate ethics and in medical care.

I love my country just as much as the next person, but I'm not going to blindly follow the government's lead instead of using some critical thinking to assess what needs help. America needs to honestly evaluate the way its people live and make both itself and corporations accountable.

Lynn7

12-11-2004, 05:18 AM

I know what you are saying and it is not that I am heartless about this issue. I have personally experienced a time when my family was in severe financial straits. It was horrible and scary but not the governmen't fault. Yes I know that it is the very poor who have access to all the great programs and that the middle class unemployed can get really squeezed but it is one thing to have nothing and it is another thing to have a house you can no longer afford and have to sell it. It is horrible but the fact is that if you have a house to sell you are really not destitute. People may have to sell that house and rent for a while but the good thing about this country is that you can always recover and buy another house. But my two of my grandparents never owned a house in their entire life because they could not afford it. A house has become an expectation for people but it does not have to be that way.

I am a nurse and I have never seen any patient turned away from medical care and many docotors will give their poorer patients samples (my grandomothers doctor gives her a steady supply of advair which is a very expensive drug. If someone cannot afford insulin then I have never heard of a case where they have not been able to get this. If I heard that someone could not get insulin I would have a problem with the government not providing it. On the other hand cholesterol medication is very expensive and maybe some programs do not cover this but there is no immediate life threatening situation if that med is not covered.

I am jsut saying that life is not always fair and there are people who fall on hard times but it is their responsibility to do what they can ( go out and get a menial job even) and it is other people's responsibility to help people out who are in need. give money to them or if you dont' know anyone personally who is having hard times donate food to food banks or to shelters or to great organizations like the SalvationARmy or to the Rescue Missions. There is a lot of people who whine about situations but who do absolutely nothing to improve anyone's lives- they just want the gov to take care of everything and not to be bothered themselves. And there are many people out of work who sit home and do nothing casue they can't find a job that pays what they used to get. I know many of these people and it is frustrating casue its' all or nothing with them. Youa hve to deal with the hand you are dealt and hopefully as you play your hand something good will open up and life will be better again.

I am no fan of corporations- they are out for profit and not for people. I fpeople are depending on them to be decent they are mistaken. Again, people need to plan their lives as if they will be laid off at some point. Many people live paycheck to paycheck casue they are buying alll the latest gagetry and they do not take care to put money away. I know tons of people who have run up really high credit debt and have no spare cash. They have all the latest in electronics etc. This is not a wise way to live. I ma an advocate of personal responsibilty and the gov should step in when things become really tough- no one should ever starve or lack a roof over their heads. And to my knowledge no one does (except people who are mentally ill or addicted and cannot fend for themselves to go out and seek help- these people are at risk but again their are groups who do outreach to even these people but they often refuse help).

TheDeadWalk

12-11-2004, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Lynn7
many docotors will give their poorer patients samples (my grandomothers doctor gives her a steady supply of advair which is a very expensive drug.

For every one of those doctors, there is likely another doctor who gets endorsement checks for a brand medicine or antibiotic that costs more than the usual brand. For him prescribing the medicine to his patients, he gets booster checks for them.

One local doctor stated "It's like I'm a walking endorsement for some of these medicines!"

No one is saying "I'm poor, give me health care government. It's all your damn fault." I'm saying that I would vote for a levy or president who would take some tax dollars out of my paycheck instead of these ridiculous health insurance premiums and deductables for insurances that don't want to cover you illness, but have no problem scooping in your cash every month.

You guys state that "The government would have the healthcare system fucked up" OK. I vote for what I believe is competent people fit for my local, state, and national positions. I would rather see these people handle national healthcare than the top dogs of insurance companies that run their scam premiums all over the country and take in billions.

My mother's insurance is now refusing to pay my father's bills for his heart and heart medication because the female on the phone told my mother "Our company feels that it has covered Terry on this issue enough over the past five years." Fuck you, Cobra plan.

I have friends that make stupid decisions and buy electronic gadgets and shit, but I don't try to generalize that as what I think of when I close my eyes and say "Poor people."

We may also think that the mentally unstable have a nice roof over their heads, but they are one of the leading candidates in our increasing homeless situation. The government can't afford to take care of the retards anymore, so they have increasingly added legislation that states what retardation needs institutionalization and what doesn't. This has attributed to more people out on the street that can't help for themselves but spoon in a bowl of soup a few times a week, care of those who provide charity.

JohnTheHenchman

12-11-2004, 07:08 PM

Who are these people you vote for that are competent? While I believe that at the local level, it might not be so bad, I'm not quite sure I trust state and national level politicians to be competent. Needless to say when I vote for senate, house of rep, governor, or president (amongst other things) I'm voting for people who won't win.

TheDeadWalk

12-11-2004, 07:57 PM

I vote entirely democratic.

By voting entirely for the democratic nominee, I am ensuring myself the best possible chances that I am voting for someone whom I view as competent and justifiable for the job.

I'm sure there are a few wishy-washy folks in the mix there, but by finding a party that is supposed to follow certain ideological lines and sticking with it, I feel that the people I vote for represent competence for the government, and I put faith into those people to do the above things mentioned, and more.

JohnTheHenchman

12-11-2004, 10:32 PM

While I obviously respect what ever decision a person makes when they step into the voting booth, I can't say I understand your justification of it. I'm not saying you have to do justify it at all but your reason doesn't make sense to me.

I could never vote strictly with one party, and I pretty much never do. The fact of the matter is that a good deal of Democrats and Republicans are completely full of shit. This Barack Obama, he seems like a decent guy and I heard what he has done in the state legislature in Illinois has been good. So that's all well and good, if I was a resident of Ill. I may have voted for him.

When I do vote, I have to vote for who's best. For County Sheriff, the Democratic Incumbent is always sick and is not in very good health, and is hardly ever on the job, so I could not vote for him, but of course NJ being a largely democratic state, the guy won. I voted Libertarian for Congress, Libertarian for President, Republican locally.

Would I ever vote Democratic? Sure, I loved James Traficant and if we ever had a candidate like him in these parts I'd vote for that person in a second.

There's lots of people that will always only vote Republican, for they feel that's the best, my father is one of them...although he doesn't agree with Bush on everything he voted for him anyway.

The division in the Democratic Party is more significant though. The Republicans are mostly very conservative, but you'll have some forward thinking guys like Sen. McCain, and more libertarian Republicans (which is really the true essense of conservatism). Let's look at some of the Democratic Candidates:

Kucinich - Pretty far left, Nader said he might not have run if he got the nomination.

Dean - Not as far left as he's usually portrayed, but not really a centrist either.

Rev. Al Sharpton - lunatic

John Kerry, Edwards - Centrists who lean a little to the left domestically. As far as the war and stuff, Kerry seemed more hawkish than the President.

Joe Lieberman - Might as well be a Republican.

That's a pretty wide spectrum that's covered there. You'd support any of them? I guess I just want to make discussion of this, if you want, because I find it interesting.

In 2008, I might vote Republican if Hillary is the Dem Nominee, but where will I draw the line? If a guy like Rick Santorum gets it, count me out. McCain (He'll be old though) or Giuliani or any liberal or libertarian Republican? Sure. Otherwise I'll vote for Badnarik if he runs again.

TheDeadWalk

12-12-2004, 11:07 PM

Everyone draws their own lines in the sand as to where people are overboard or unfit for the job. Al Sharpton aka Lunatic is pretty much on par with my thoughts of him as well.

Those people you see negatively in the limelight, you can have an accurate opinion of. However, there are more democrats, republicans, green partians, libertarians, and reformians than you can shake a stick at.

Do I have time to sit and read literature on all of my local, state, and national representatives and all of their challengers? No, I don't.

So thus, I read up and follow specific party lines, their ideals and what they stand for. I line myself up to that side, and at anytime I see something like this:

John Smith - Rep
John Smith - Dem
John Smith - Ind
John Smith - Lib

I check the box that says "Democrat".

If I turn on my Dirk Van in the morning on MSNBC and hear testimony that the democrat John Smith was on stage drunk saying he was going to get his cabinet to gangbang Condoleza Rice to make her lighten up when he got into office, I would then refuse to vote for him. Same if I read/heard/saw that democrat promise to do something or force a bill that I was totally against.

It falls under the basic category of time like I said. My commissioner, treasurer, mayor, senator, congress representatives, president, sheriff, all of the levies, issues, and judicial positions that are open... there isn't enough time to get literature or find out specific actions of each candidate. I can try to be independent, but in the end it's too much trouble than what it's worth. If I see a bad apple, I won't vote for it. Otherwise, I keep in assumption that the democratic candidate who is obviously being supported by his party is going to follow the party lines that the democratic party stands for. Those party lines fall in favor with what I feel is in my best interest, so I vote with that alignment.

There are obvious folks in the party that stand out and shine in an inappropriate manner, and they are recognized. Not always, but most likely. Voting in that manner 98-100% of the time is the only way to best assure that I am getting what I want out of my government in the best means possible.

As for the sickly sheriff, I wouldn't have let health issues deter that. A sheriff is just a political figurehead, a mouth if you will that also does accounting and management. They are never expected to be patrolling the streets looking for badguys.

JohnTheHenchman

12-12-2004, 11:48 PM

I live in NJ, the most densely populated state and I live in one of the largest municipalities in the state in a pretty big county, so I know that the sherrif isn't patrolling the streets, however...being very sick prevents one from doing their job whether it's administrative work or walking the beat. He won anyway, so my vote didn't matter I guess.

As for your whole issue with not having the time to know everything about the candidates, it's understood...between work and school I can't say I like to spend my time reading about the next middle aged white man who might control my life. Luckily, I managed to find a pretty good site.

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

It's excellent, you spend pretty much five minutes reading about the given candidates answers to the survey (if they answered it). It's how I decided to vote Libertarian for House of Representatives.

Perhaps your state's Democratic party is not a crooked one, I don't know where you live (NJ's Dem party....well do the names Sen. Torricelli and Gov. McGreevey evoke fine states man in your mind?). In that case, great...that's more than I can say for this political cesspool.

SubMethod

12-13-2004, 01:03 AM

I haven't read any of the posts in this thread, but I am putting this link on here anyways because of the title.

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/victorysalute.html

TheDeadWalk

12-13-2004, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by SubMethod
I haven't read any of the posts in this thread, but I am putting this link on here anyways because of the title.

http://www.big-boys.com/articles/victorysalute.html

Don't click that link if you're at work and have websense. It is considered "Adult content".

Lynn7

12-17-2004, 08:24 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TheDeadWalk

No one is saying "I'm poor, give me health care government. It's all your damn fault." I'm saying that I would vote for a levy or president who would take some tax dollars out of my paycheck instead of these ridiculous health insurance premiums and deductables for insurances that don't want to cover you illness, but have no problem scooping in your cash every month.

You guys state that "The government would have the healthcare system fucked up" OK. I vote for what I believe is competent people fit for my local, state, and national positions. I would rather see these people handle national healthcare than the top dogs of insurance companies that run their scam premiums all over the country and take in billions.
__________________________________________________ _

Most of the politicians have no business background at all. If you look at their education and their expereince it is mostly BS. Many are just career politicians. Most even. These people don't have a clue- they only vote for things that will get them reelected.Well, there are a few out there who really do the right thing but it is not the rule.

__________________________________________________ _
My mother's insurance is now refusing to pay my father's bills for his heart and heart medication because the female on the phone told my mother "Our company feels that it has covered Terry on this issue enough over the past five years." Fuck you, Cobra plan______________________________________________

That really sucks. We have had our runaround with insurance companies too. If government wants to get involved, let them make some rules for insurance that does not allow them to make decisions like this. One good rule is that insurance companies can not turn people away who have preexisting health conditions. My mother has multiple medial problems and years ago she might not have been able to get any coverage at all. I think we should make the curent system better- not turn it over to gov.

__________________________________________________ __
We may also think that the mentally unstable have a nice roof over their heads, but they are one of the leading candidates in our increasing homeless situation. The government can't afford to take care of the retards anymore, so they have increasingly added legislation that states what retardation needs institutionalization and what doesn't. This has attributed to more people out on the street that can't help for themselves but spoon in a bowl of soup a few times a week, care of [I]those who provide charity.
__________________________________________________ _______

Much of the problem started when the mentally ill were alllowed the choice of whether they should be institutionalized o not. The only reason they can be forced to stay in an institution is if they are a dangere to themselves or others. Many of them choose not to be hospitalized but they are clearly unable to take care of themselves and their quality of life is horrible. They just don't know any better. It is sad. i think they should definitely be forced back into institutions but Im sure the ACLU would have problems with what I am saying. I guess the best compromise is to try to get them into shelters when it is cold and to make sure they eat OK. Some local church groups go out regularly and give out sandwiches and stuff. It's really sad to see how they live.