So you guys are telling me... You agree with whats going on in Iraq. You're for combination of church and state. You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations. You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000. You're against having cleaner air. You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else) You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level). You're against helping people who are struggling.
Bush supporters really need to rethink about who they're supporting. What is it about Bush that you guys actually support? National Security? That reason alone isn't good enough.
[This message has been edited by Spektrum-87GT (edited 02-03-2004).]
I agree with it more now than I did a year ago, yes.
"You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations. "
That's never been proposed by anyone so it's a moot point. However, had all those on SS now just taken that same money and done private investing properly, even very conservatively (like in banks and government bonds) they'd have 2-3 times more income now than they do with SS.
"You're for combination of church and state. "
No, I believe in the US Constitution. You should read it sometime. Since I know you're too busy spreading half truths and fabrications, here's what it says about the subject:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Only liberal court interpretations make it out to be something it is not.
"You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000."
Absolutely, as well as for anyone else that pays taxes.
"You're against having cleaner air."
No, but if I insist on giving you the right to free speech, I really can't do anything about what you spew into it.
"You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. "
Absolutely. As well as anywhere else there are vast petroleum reserves in our nation as long as the environmental impact is minimized, which it will be in the AWR.
"You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else)"
What a silly thing to say. Do you really believe that businesses pay taxes? Of course, they right the checks, but where does the money come from that they pay them with? Do you think that Tyson pays their taxes or do you pay a fraction of them when you buy that chicken at the store?
"You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level)."
I'm against the government mandating what a person is worth. Period. How many jobs are you willing to not have at all to raise the minimum wage $1/hour?
"You're against helping people who are struggling."
Nope. I help them all the time. Directly and through private charities I support. I do not think that the government has a right to take money from me at the point of a gun so that THEY can decide who deserves it and not I. The founders apparently thought the same thing since there's not a single reference to it in the constitution.
"Bush supporters really need to rethink about who they're supporting. What is it about Bush that you guys actually support? National Security? That reason alone isn't good enough."
National Security is the ONLY reason that you mentioned that's written in our Constitution that our government SHOULD be concerning itself with. I challenge you right now to find a copy of it (shouldn't take long if you know how to use a search engine) and prove me wrong.
I'm for Bush on most things, but for other things that he doesn't want, but the others want. I for one see that we need to get Church back into the gov't, at least to a minimum. If you don't believe in God, fine, but remember the old saying "The sun never sets in the British Empire." God blessed Britain back then, when everyone still believed in God, but after a lot of people started to not believe, the empire was taken down. The same's happening to America. I also wish to have a full out constitutional ban on Gay Marriages, God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, and don't get started on its "because of chemical reactions in the brain" Satan is a deceiver, and brings forth lies everywheres. Now along with the cleaner air standards, also comes with a bigger price! Emissions testing in every state for all cars, I bet. Think about what would happen, with even stricter laws. It'll become another 70's cut emissions thing. The Arctic should be drilled for oil, the animals can migrate. We'll be needing more oil as it is, to cut prices down now. Now with the Privatizing of Social Security, it would be very good. It would be put into the hands of private companies to invest with it, to create more money, for the old folk. The government just doesn't know Jack about running it. Now of course I would love to see Minimum wage be raise, hell at $5.15 an hour, its nothing. Minimum wage I believe needs to be at a minimum of $7.25 everywheres to survive, and it should be done!!!!
IP: Logged
08:45 PM
Spektrum-87GT Member
Posts: 1601 From: Yorktown, VA Registered: Aug 2001
I agree with it more now than I did a year ago, yes.
"You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations. "
That's never been proposed by anyone so it's a moot point. However, had all those on SS now just taken that same money and done private investing properly, even very conservatively (like in banks and government bonds) they'd have 2-3 times more income now than they do with SS.
"You're for combination of church and state. "
No, I believe in the US Constitution. You should read it sometime. Since I know you're too busy spreading half truths and fabrications, here's what it says about the subject:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Only liberal court interpretations make it out to be something it is not.
"You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000."
Absolutely, as well as for anyone else that pays taxes.
"You're against having cleaner air."
No, but if I insist on giving you the right to free speech, I really can't do anything about what you spew into it.
"You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. "
Absolutely. As well as anywhere else there are vast petroleum reserves in our nation as long as the environmental impact is minimized, which it will be in the AWR.
"You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else)"
What a silly thing to say. Do you really believe that businesses pay taxes? Of course, they right the checks, but where does the money come from that they pay them with? Do you think that Tyson pays their taxes or do you pay a fraction of them when you buy that chicken at the store?
"You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level)."
I'm against the government mandating what a person is worth. Period. How many jobs are you willing to not have at all to raise the minimum wage $1/hour?
"You're against helping people who are struggling."
Nope. I help them all the time. Directly and through private charities I support. I do not think that the government has a right to take money from me at the point of a gun so that THEY can decide who deserves it and not I. The founders apparently thought the same thing since there's not a single reference to it in the constitution.
"Bush supporters really need to rethink about who they're supporting. What is it about Bush that you guys actually support? National Security? That reason alone isn't good enough."
National Security is the ONLY reason that you mentioned that's written in our Constitution that our government SHOULD be concerning itself with. I challenge you right now to find a copy of it (shouldn't take long if you know how to use a search engine) and prove me wrong.
John Stricker
Try addressing the questions instead of being cynical and patronizing. Bush stands for certain issues, that is a fact. Click the link and you will see who you actually agree with politically and what the candidates views on issues are..
BTW: Pres Bush did run on the issue of privatizing social security. That was one of his selling points.
[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 02-03-2004).]
IP: Logged
09:04 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
So you guys are telling me... You agree with whats going on in Iraq. YES You're for combination of church and state. NO You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations. DEFINTIELY!!!!!!!!!! You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000. YES You're against having cleaner air.NO, but I am against ineffective and expensive beauracracy pretending that they make the air cleaner You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. NO You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else). YES. And No it doesn't. Pick up an economic book before commenting again. You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level). ABSOLUTELY!!!!! Unemployment would skyrocket and class division would increase You're against helping people who are struggling. Now that comment is just plain retarded. Republicans are for helping people but not by giving them a hand-out. Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach him to fish, he eats for a lifetime
Bush supporters really need to rethink about who they're supporting. What is it about Bush that you guys actually support? National Security? That reason alone isn't good enough.
You have so much to learn.
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 02-03-2004).]
IP: Logged
09:52 PM
Unsafe At Any Speed Member
Posts: 2299 From: Cheyenne, WY Registered: Feb 2003
So you guys are telling me... 1. You agree with whats going on in Iraq. 2. You're for combination of church and state. 3. You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations. 4. You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000. 5. You're against having cleaner air. 6. You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. 7. You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else) 8. You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level). 9. You're against helping people who are struggling.
Bush supporters really need to rethink about who they're supporting. What is it about Bush that you guys actually support? National Security? That reason alone isn't good enough.
1. Yes. 2. No, I do differ with Bush on this type of thing. 3. Why not? It's not going to work much longer how it is now. 4. If everyone is getting cuts, why should the rich be excluded? If they make more than me, so be it. I also think there should be a flat tax rate. Just because one guy/gal makes more money than the next, does not mean the first guy/gal should have to pay out a greater percentage of their money. 5. Spin. 6. Yes. It's not really as bad as it sounds. I don't feel like going into the details for you probally will disagree with me regardless. 7. Don't agree here. 8. Raising the minimum wage screws people over who make more than the minimum wage. With the raising of the minimum wage comes prices raised across the board. At the same time, everyone else who is not making minimum wage recieve no pay raise. This effectively, decreases the pay, in a sense, of those already above minimum wage. (Keep in mind, that I make minimum wage and think this way regardless.) 9. I am for helping to an extent. There has to be a certain degree of self-responsibility. Afterall one of the founding ideals of this country is that of self-determination.
In closing, there actually are quite a few issues that I do not agree with Bush on. Yet at the same time, the potential alternative candidates offer even less in my opinion. Personally, I think Bush has done a good job, therefor he should continue with it.
IP: Logged
10:38 PM
Patrick's Dad Member
Posts: 5154 From: Weymouth MA USA Registered: Feb 2000
Try addressing the questions instead of being cynical and patronizing. Bush stands for certain issues, that is a fact. Click the link and you will see who you actually agree with politically and what the candidates views on issues are..
IMO, John addressed each of those points directly, not cynically. Maybe patronizing, because when you ask a question in a certain way, i.e.: "You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000." the assumption is that only people who make $100K+ are getting the tax cut. That's a plain lie. Check your own pay stub and compare it with last year's and the year before.
John didn't address the fact that when businesses get taxed out the yingyang, they cut jobs and/or send them to other countries. Same with the MW. If I'm not happy with what I'm getting paid, it's up to me to renegotiate or leave for greener pastures. Anyways, 5K moderate pay jobs with moderate taxation (coming from consumers' pockets anyways) is always better than 0 highpaying jobs and a company with a new address.
quote
BTW: Pres Bush did run on the issue of privatizing social security. That was one of his selling points.
In that private companies would allow individuals to invest the funds as they wished. If I decide to risk my money (Even when the government takes it, it's mine) in the stock market, then it's my own damn fault if I lose it. However, historically, the average annual return on the market has been 12% per year. Why can't the government grow my money like that?
EDIT: Speeling errorz
[This message has been edited by Patrick's Dad (edited 02-03-2004).]
Hey maaannnn (puff puff) name a president that DIDN'T have a personal adjenda when he got into the big house. (Puff puff) we is all is just the slave to the "machine" maannnn.
Now if youall wants ta be programmed to think as the media wants you ta think than I think you aint been thinkin much (puff puff.... puff)
So if you has bee hoppin on the Bush bashin band wagon then (PUFFFFFFFF.. pufff) be glad you beez a "FREE" American... (puff puff COUGH! gag hack!)..... Scusame.... Nah where wuz I ? Oh yeah "Free" to cast 1 vote and be FREE OF GWB..
BUT THANK GOD! Gore didnt get into office!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey maaannnn (puff puff) name a president that DIDN'T have a personal adjenda when he got into the big house. (Puff puff) we is all is just the slave to the "machine" maannnn.
Now if youall wants ta be programmed to think as the media wants you ta think than I think you aint been thinkin much (puff puff.... puff)
So if you has bee hoppin on the Bush bashin band wagon then (PUFFFFFFFF.. pufff) be glad you beez a "FREE" American... (puff puff COUGH! gag hack!)..... Scusame.... Nah where wuz I ? Oh yeah "Free" to cast 1 vote and be FREE OF GWB..
BUT THANK GOD! Gore didnt get into office!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alright, not to slam anyone in particular... but this whole idea is dumb. You're not going to convince people of their politics one way or the other by posting slamming crap from the opposing party. I could sit here and talk all day long about stuff that Klinton did that I didn't like, and what the conservatives have to say about it, but at the end of the day, you're not going to care because either A. You'll say it's a lie, or B. You'll say it doesn't matter.
So... Yeah, go ahead and put all that stuff about Bush. You'll have all of the Liberals give you pluses and say you're the coolest person alive. But NO ONE who supports Bush is really going to care.
And on that note, i really hope Cliff closes this down, cause there is no point, and it's a waste of bandwidth
This thread has intelligent individuals having reasonable discussion without flames, baiting, and name calling. Why would Cliff trash-can it? Heck, it's a rarity!
So you guys are telling me... You agree with whats going on in Iraq. You're for combination of church and state. You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations. You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000. You're against having cleaner air. You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else) You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level). You're against helping people who are struggling.
Bush supporters really need to rethink about who they're supporting. What is it about Bush that you guys actually support? National Security? That reason alone isn't good enough.
1) I like what is happening now in Iraq (slow but sure democratization of what was formerly a totalitarian state) as opposed to what was happening there a year ago (torture, murder, rape, all sanctioned by the government). Do you prefer the Hussein regime and its human rights abuses to what is happening there now?
2) I'm not sure what this means. The Bush administration has not advocated anything like this. But our nation was founded on the notion that we are all beholden to our creator (whoever that may be) and that that creator presents an ultimate arbiter of right and wrong.
3) YES I AM. The social security system is broken. No one argues the point. Perhaps if we turn it over to someone who has a profit motive, it will not be broken. In any event, at this point it can't hurt to try it.
4) I'm for any and all tax cuts, the more the better. I am, always have been, and probably always will be a supply-sider. I love them voodoo economics! Because they WORK.
5) Show me the Bush policy which has as its stated goal an increase in pollutants. You will not find any such thing. No one is FOR dirtier air. That's a Democrat straw man (Al Gore himself said it) raised solely to tar and feather the Republicans.
6) YES I AM. I'll post a pic of the relative size of the ANWR. It's a tiny, tiny piece of the state of Alaska.
7) See #4 above. Right now the US government consumes 21.5% of the nation's GDP, which is a higher level than it's ever been in history IIRC.
8) I am against raising the minimum wage. I'm against a minimum wage, period. I don't think the minimum wage helps people the way you think it does. It stifles job creation.
9) You cannot say that I am against helping people. Helping people is what I do for a living--as a CNA I do a lot of things that most people wouldn't do, for a wage most people wouldn't find acceptable. I wipe the butts of disabled senior citizens. I clean up vomit and poop and pee, I feed them, I dress them, and I do other things like empty colostomy bags. I am 100% for helping people...but only those that need it. I believe the current welfare system is too easily spoofed; it's too easy to get a free ride with the way things are. I am not for the nanny state. I am for government programs that help only those in need, and only enough to get them to a point where they can help themselves.
Yes. Absolutely. Our nation was founded with many religious principles, and we could certainly use a few now, don't you think?
"You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations."
Absolutely!
"You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000."
Yes. My wife and I don't make $100,000 a year, but I still got a tax cut. Cut my taxes more.
"You're against having cleaner air."
No. I like clean air. But, as mentioned, I'm also against ineffective and expensive government 'feel good' programs that pretend to make the air cleaner.
"You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge."
Absolutely!
"You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else)"
As mentioned before, take that economics class.
"You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level)."
Yes! Minimum wage jobs are not for supporting families. Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs in the labor force, and they are held usually by young people out of school. The idea is to train them to be able to move up in the work force and make more money with some job experience. If all you can handle is minimum wage jobs, you shouldn't be raising kids.
"You're against helping people who are struggling."
Again, as mentioned before, that is a retarded comment. Personal responsibility is a foundation. If you don't want to help yourself, why should I do it for you? If you can't do it, then I'm happy to do everything in my power to help out. But you have to try.
"Bush supporters really need to rethink about who they're supporting. What is it about Bush that you guys actually support? National Security? That reason alone isn't good enough."
National security is a pretty good reason, but as I mentioned above, there certainly is more to support. I don't agree with everything he's done, or everything he's doing (none of us will ever agree with everything any President does), but he says what he means and means what he says.
So you guys are telling me... You agree with whats going on in Iraq. You're for combination of church and state. You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations. You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000. You're against having cleaner air. You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else) You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level). You're against helping people who are struggling.
Bush supporters really need to rethink about who they're supporting. What is it about Bush that you guys actually support? National Security? That reason alone isn't good enough.
it's awfully funny that the very people who call this presidents policies a catastrophy would gladly inharit it now as opposed to waiting 4 years when "if their right" they could not only win but even get support of republicans i have always found it very suspicious when people cry that the sky is falling but show no reservation about inheriting the burden of solving the problem i have also noticed "wether republican or democrat" that when this level of political intensity is displayed with this level of personal attack , its usually so the otherside can grab control of what they percieve a good road ahead it happend after regan and then found it's voice after bush 1's first term , then during the clinton years it up'd again but yielded only seats in congress but not the presidency, in 2000 it wasn't as loud until the election hit a snag where the votes were counted and recounted gore tried to get himself appointed by the courts by asking the justices to not only recount but to exspand the definition of a qualified vote , but the courts ultimately rejected gores position and some how that make GWB appointed? "gimme a break" i suppose gore would have been lagit if the courts went his way "right" talk about laughable lol
as for your post "whats new" that been the same spun interpretation the democrats have been using throughout 02-03 and continued in 04 , yet if you look around at all those states that are running deficits their only solution has been to raise taxes "bush did that...right?" they had deficits before 9-11 if not shortly after it before bush supposedly started wrecking the economy "they would have raised taxes anyway" so try and imagine how state tax increases would have effected your wallets and purses if bush had not called for tax cuts "consider that"
lets talk about medicare ,immunity for ilegal aliens and the enviroment , medicare: first off democrats have been begging for years to exspand socialized medicine including drug benifits and now that its not only offered but also recieved the only gripe is that "it doesnt go far enough and its gonna increase the deficit" yeah! just like it would have if the democrats could have gotten it passed "but even more so since their claiming that it doesn't provide enough"
you cant say the bill doesn't do enough then turn around and claim its a big spending bill without "outing" the fact that you would have made it do more which would have been an even larger spending bill
immunity for illegals: how can anyone who claims that we cant even deport illegals back to the inhuman enviroment they have fled from to find freedom and opportunity but yet deny/opress their ability to file an income tax return while allowing them the right to obtain a drivers license with the ability to vote? "i get it , let'em in let'em work let'em drive and vote but for god's sake dont let them ask for the over payment of taxes , let'em work more hours than americans let'em get paid less but for god's sake dont let'em qualified for social security benifits workers comp or even a company or 401k retirement plan" dang yall i thought slavery was done away with years ago did abe lie or are some people just better than others
enviroment: global warming ? to some degree "i agree" but come on when you have to claim that global warming is causing record cold temps maybe you are exagerating the facts just a bit "what is the temprature in your area today , what was it 5 yrs ago,10yrs ago , 50 yrs ago or even 100 yrs ago? how far can you go back before you have to rely on hypothosis and theory instead of documented facts , whats the UV level we recieve from the sun "today" how far back do you have to go to find much differance and where on earth do you have to be standing before your effected by it ... the ozone hole is growing "true" but its shrinking too and at times they cant even find the darn thing but when they do find it they quickly assert that its growing and mankind is near exstiction yeah im seeing skin cancer on nearly everyone i meet these days how bought you , are you rushing out to the store to stock up on sun block , have you noticed a shortage of produce at the store due to extended cold winter weather or droughts from months without rain and higher temperature and short summers hmmm! i hear that there is science to back it up that it realy exists but what i dont see is the proof at the market "doesnt seem like their hard pressed to fill in a hole left by sold out produce"
man i could go on an on the logic that we are in worse shape now than we were "ever" in just doesn't track when those who claim that things are bad are so eagerly fighting to gladly assume the burden of fixing it... lol
and trust me this will be the last time i post or reply with a message this long "fingers cramp after a while Ouch!" any way thats my 10cent "i'd have given yall my 2cent but i only had a dime on me" sorry
[This message has been edited by JRM-2M6 (edited 02-04-2004).]
IP: Logged
12:34 AM
Uaana Member
Posts: 6570 From: Robbinsdale MN US Registered: Dec 1999
Let's go back to the Clinton years.. Only one little caveat on that statment.. Name me one thing he actually did! One major policy change. One international crisis solved. Anything.. please just name me one thing he did other than follow what the "Polls" said would be a good thing.
Just to show I'm not completely in Bush's boat. More money for AIDS in Africa - (If they're too stupid to wear a condom or change their lifestyle then let Darwin do his job) Amnesty for Illegals - (I do support a guest worker program, but not the way he has a blanket amnesty for all already here.. jeesh try closing the borders first.) Increased funding for the arts?!?! - (If you paint/make/perform crap.. why should you be funded for it? If you do it well ppl will pay to see it, problem solved)
I'd blow holes in the rest of your rant but Ed and others have already pretty much done that... Try the Democraticunderground.com the loved Dean and the idea of a "workers paradise" as well.. But look behind the curtain if you dare.. and notice how many threads/posts are deleted for not following the Party line.. Now try a look at rightnation.us , yup some hard/far righters on there.. but they still allow a dissenting opinion to be posted and leave it up there..
Well I'll leave off with that.. I could go on for awhile on this stuff but trying to talk sense to a liberal is like trying to teach a fish to type.
Klinton made the major policy change of calling rifles 'Assault weapons' and banning them. That was his contribution to society. You may not be an owner, but think of it this way. If they start slashing the Bill of Rights, which one of them are you willing to sacrifice next?
IP: Logged
06:26 AM
tesmith66 Member
Posts: 7355 From: Jerseyville, IL Registered: Sep 2001
I'm being neither cynical or patronizing and I addressed every point that was put to "Bush Supporters". Since I do intend to vote for the President, I assumed that was addressed to me. Spectrum's post was in and of itself inflammatory and written in a way that therre could be no yes/no answers even to issues that don't exist so don't presume to lecture me about patronizing.
Bush's ran on reforming Social Security and I hate to tell you this but somebody better do it in a way different than we are now or the federal deficit we're running will look like child's play in comparison to the social security under-funding in a few years.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by connecticutFIERO:
Try addressing the questions instead of being cynical and patronizing. Bush stands for certain issues, that is a fact. Click the link and you will see who you actually agree with politically and what the candidates views on issues are..
BTW: Pres Bush did run on the issue of privatizing social security. That was one of his selling points.
Let's go back to the Clinton years.. Only one little caveat on that statment.. Name me one thing he actually did! One major policy change. One international crisis solved. Anything.. please just name me one thing he did other than follow what the "Polls" said would be a good thing.
Just to show I'm not completely in Bush's boat. More money for AIDS in Africa - (If they're too stupid to wear a condom or change their lifestyle then let Darwin do his job) Amnesty for Illegals - (I do support a guest worker program, but not the way he has a blanket amnesty for all already here.. jeesh try closing the borders first.) Increased funding for the arts?!?! - (If you paint/make/perform crap.. why should you be funded for it? If you do it well ppl will pay to see it, problem solved)
I'd blow holes in the rest of your rant but Ed and others have already pretty much done that... Try the Democraticunderground.com the loved Dean and the idea of a "workers paradise" as well.. But look behind the curtain if you dare.. and notice how many threads/posts are deleted for not following the Party line.. Now try a look at rightnation.us , yup some hard/far righters on there.. but they still allow a dissenting opinion to be posted and leave it up there..
Well I'll leave off with that.. I could go on for awhile on this stuff but trying to talk sense to a liberal is like trying to teach a fish to type.
He helped pass tax changes like the Hope Scholarship credit which will help struggling students get a descent tax return during their first two years in college. He also passed the LifeTime learning credit which allows people who want to go back to school to claim $1500.00 or 20% whichever is greater of their school related expenses as writeoffs against their taxes.
There you go thats two.
Heres another thing: During his term the national community college system in the U.S. was funded enough that at least 1 of the 6 community colleges in this state was brought to modern standards for higher learning. You should see it, its a gorgeous building packed with technology and art galleries.
Once Bush took office there was no more money left to continue the effort to upgrade our schools to where they need to be. And Pres Bush has actually taken position against helping fund community colleges. Go ahead and talk about wealth redistribution, but I can tell you that I never would have been able to get a college degree without the help of Clinton. I could afford the tuition because federal funding to the schools helped keep the cost affordable, then I would actually get some money back in my taxes that I would have otherwise had to kiss goodbye.
Just because you don't like Clinton that doesn't make what he did any less important.
And BTW there are so many people being abused in places like Walmart being paid minimum wage for years and years, these places need at least a certain amount of people to operate. They would have no choice but to cut profits or cut somewhere else, I don't believe it means cutting staff. Heck I don't mind paying 2 pennies more each time I buy a pair of socks from Walmart. So please explain how it is that there would be less jobs if the minimum wage was raised. I think you have all forgotten what its like to work 40 hrs a week and take home like $150.00 You all sit in your place of comfort and look down upon theese poor folks who don't have the skill or education to do something better. I remember the hell of working minimum wage and being treated like sh!t.
IP: Logged
09:48 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
I'm being neither cynical or patronizing and I addressed every point that was put to "Bush Supporters". Since I do intend to vote for the President, I assumed that was addressed to me. Spectrum's post was in and of itself inflammatory and written in a way that therre could be no yes/no answers even to issues that don't exist so don't presume to lecture me about patronizing.
Bush ran on reforming Social Security and I hate to tell you this but somebody better do it in a way different than we are now or the federal deficit we're running will look like child's play in comparison to the social security under-funding in a few years.
John Stricker
quote
Originally posted by connecticutFIERO:
Try addressing the questions instead of being cynical and patronizing. Bush stands for certain issues, that is a fact. Click the link and you will see who you actually agree with politically and what the candidates views on issues are..
BTW: Pres Bush did run on the issue of privatizing social security. That was one of his selling points.
[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 02-04-2004).]
Right there is your first mistake. You are appearently assuming that we here on the forum are telling you something. NO A liberal news media ( AOL News and Time) has appearently ask the candidates those questions it has answers too and knows the degree to which a candidate feels about it also.
Now somehow this puts me in the frame of mind as this is mostly designed to push the liberal side of this election.
IP: Logged
10:31 AM
trailboss Member
Posts: 2069 From: Gilbert, Arizona Registered: Feb 2003
I agree with it more now than I did a year ago, yes.
"You're for Social Security being handed over to private organizations. "
That's never been proposed by anyone so it's a moot point. However, had all those on SS now just taken that same money and done private investing properly, even very conservatively (like in banks and government bonds) they'd have 2-3 times more income now than they do with SS.
"You're for combination of church and state. "
No, I believe in the US Constitution. You should read it sometime. Since I know you're too busy spreading half truths and fabrications, here's what it says about the subject:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Only liberal court interpretations make it out to be something it is not.
"You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000."
Absolutely, as well as for anyone else that pays taxes.
"You're against having cleaner air."
No, but if I insist on giving you the right to free speech, I really can't do anything about what you spew into it.
"You're for oil drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. "
Absolutely. As well as anywhere else there are vast petroleum reserves in our nation as long as the environmental impact is minimized, which it will be in the AWR.
"You're for additional tax cuts for businesses.(which means you get to pay the difference, you cut someones taxes and it comes out of the pockets of someone else)"
What a silly thing to say. Do you really believe that businesses pay taxes? Of course, they right the checks, but where does the money come from that they pay them with? Do you think that Tyson pays their taxes or do you pay a fraction of them when you buy that chicken at the store?
"You're against raising the minimum wage(which is already well below the poverty level)."
I'm against the government mandating what a person is worth. Period. How many jobs are you willing to not have at all to raise the minimum wage $1/hour?
"You're against helping people who are struggling."
Nope. I help them all the time. Directly and through private charities I support. I do not think that the government has a right to take money from me at the point of a gun so that THEY can decide who deserves it and not I. The founders apparently thought the same thing since there's not a single reference to it in the constitution.
"Bush supporters really need to rethink about who they're supporting. What is it about Bush that you guys actually support? National Security? That reason alone isn't good enough."
National Security is the ONLY reason that you mentioned that's written in our Constitution that our government SHOULD be concerning itself with. I challenge you right now to find a copy of it (shouldn't take long if you know how to use a search engine) and prove me wrong.
John Stricker
I couldn't have said it any better. Honorable mention to Toddster and EdHering...
IP: Logged
10:38 AM
ditch Member
Posts: 3780 From: Brookston, IN Registered: Mar 2003
I can tell you that I never would have been able to get a college degree without the help of Clinton. I could afford the tuition because federal funding to the schools helped keep the cost affordable, then I would actually get some money back in my taxes that I would have otherwise had to kiss goodbye.
You all sit in your place of comfort and look down upon theese poor folks who don't have the skill or education to do something better. I remember the hell of working minimum wage and being treated like sh!t.
I'm not trying to bash you here, but feel I have to say something about this...
I was able to get a college degree with the help of MYSELF. I started with nothing and worked my butt off to pay my bills and get thru school...that was the hardest I've ever worked in my life. I did it and tons of people are still doing it today.
If you want to change your life you have to do it yourself. If I had a crappy salary after working at the same place year after year, I'd do something about it, not wait for the government to help me.
IP: Logged
11:06 AM
The PRE10DR Member
Posts: 926 From: Felton, MN USA Registered: Nov 2002
You're for the tax cuts for people making over 100,000.
Why is it that most liberals have such a hard time when a President, especially Bush cuts taxes, but instead would rather see them raised at all corners?!
Isn't it amazing how many people will gripe and cry over any tax cut plans per say that Bush did and/or continues to work on/propose and that it's not in the best interest of our economy.
And yet, I willing to bet not one of you that continually whines about how the tax cuts are bad even refused that refund check you may have gotten a couple of years back, be it $0.01 or $600, but gladly endorsed the back and deposited it into your account while at the same time continued bad mouthing the President.
quote
Whaaaa! Whaaaa! Whaaaa! <endorses back of check, fills out deposit slip and records amount in check/deposit book> That damn President Bush and his stupid tax cuts! Whaaa! Whaaa! Whaaa! <pulls up to bank teller window> I wish the democrats were back in power and increasing taxes. Whaaaa! Whaaa! Whaaa! I'd like to deposit this into my account please. Whaaa! Whaaa! Whaaa! That George Dumbya is an imbecile! <drives away from bank teller window> <Spends the money that they now have as the see fit>
Under Regan/Bush Sr., my estimated income taxes that I have to pay 4 times a year so as not to get penalized at Tax Time, were pretty stable...increased a little under Bush Sr., but not much...but under Clinton, damn near doubled if not tripled and I still was short and owed at Tax Time to both Fed and State...in the thousands!
Under GWB, I have more in my paycheck each month, my estimated taxes each year have been continually going down and at Tax Time I don't get hit as hard as I did under Clinton's regime, having to pay an exorbanant underpaid tax liablity and/or I get a refund, which gives me more options to either A) Reinvest for myself and the economy and/or B) Spend on something to treat myself, thus trickling down the economy ladder stimulating it.
------------------ "The PRE10DR" AIM: JeffSocha
IP: Logged
11:17 AM
Old Lar Member
Posts: 13797 From: Palm Bay, Florida Registered: Nov 1999
I also worked to make money to go to college. You had a taxpayer funded education K-12, now some believe they need a taxpayer funded 4 more years, 6 more years or maybe a lifetime of free education, housing food etc. When is the payback time. It is time some tried to take care of themselves and not look for others to fund their needs. Get a job.
I'm not trying to bash you here, but feel I have to say something about this...
I was able to get a college degree with the help of MYSELF. I started with nothing and worked my butt off to pay my bills and get thru school...that was the hardest I've ever worked in my life. I did it and tons of people are still doing it today.
If you want to change your life you have to do it yourself. If I had a crappy salary after working at the same place year after year, I'd do something about it, not wait for the government to help me.
I never said that the government paid for my degree I said that if it wasn't for the government funding to the community college systems I wouldn't have been able to afford the tuition. Trust me I know what its like to pay for 4 clases while working 40-50 hours a week and trying to be around as much as possible for my then pregnant girlfriend at the time. It was tough and since I still am going it still is tough.
I think you are missing the point about the minimum wage employees. Some of these people are not exactly spring chickens with a lot going for them. Some people have been stuck in low payimg jobs their whole life and the only business they know is retail. I've met plenty of them when I was in highschool working at stores. I even met one guy who was a book editor that was laid off and couldn't find a better job than working at Office Max for $6 an hour. Retail is like slave labor in this country and sometimes people get caught up in it and never get out. Its these people and food service workers who need the extra boost in the minimum wage.
I mean how could you guys actually believe that raising a whole class of peoples living standards is bad. What was the minimum wage when you started working? I bet its been raised by 5-7 times that amount in the last couple of decades. Did the market colapse and did everyone lose thier job??? NO. Clinton last raised the minimum wage a couple years back and the economy was growing at a pace never seen in modern american history. Don't hide behind economics because it masks the truth. Sure the market will have to adjust to the new minimum wage for certain sctors like retail and food service, but it will help millions of people. People still want their McDonals in less than 2 minutes at the drive thru, and that can't be accomplished with a skeleton crew. Trust me if raising the minimum wage was economic suicide than we would all be dead in the water already. The pay scale needs to reflect the cost of living and currently it doesn't.
IP: Logged
11:26 AM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Heres another thing: During his term the national community college system in the U.S. was funded enough that at least 1 of the 6 community colleges in this state was brought to modern standards for higher learning. You should see it, its a gorgeous building packed with technology and art galleries.
I don't know how it works in Connecticut, but around here, the community colleges are funded through state and local taxes. The Maricopa County (Phoenix et al) Community College District gets about 18% from the state, 60% from local property taxes, and 18% from tuition. That leaves about 4% for the Federal government. In 1994, our colleges passed a bond to improve and expand the community college system, but that was a local bond, it had nothing to do with the Federal government. And in Iowa, the percentage of Federal funding of community colleges actually fell during Clinton's presidency.
I also worked to make money to go to college. You had a taxpayer funded education K-12, now some believe they need a taxpayer funded 4 more years, 6 more years or maybe a lifetime of free education, housing food etc. When is the payback time. It is time some tried to take care of themselves and not look for others to fund their needs. Get a job.
Just because their are tax credits that doesn't mean the government pays for your education. When was the last time you looked at tuition? How about book costs?
There is no way either hope or lifetime learning credit will cover all costs. Our country's job market has been changing from manufacturing to technology and information processing for years now, and we need a higher educated workforce to help keep jobs. If we rely on people who are out of work because they lost their factory job to just get up and go to school with no income and a mortgage etc.. to pay it will be a much longer transition period. I think the fed is trying to push the workforce into the new millenia. Know what I mean?
Oh and by the way its payback time when the newly educated person increaes their income bracket with a better paying job and starts paying more taxes than they ever would have working at some minimum wage job and qualifying for the EIC credit each year.
I don't know how it works in Connecticut, but around here, the community colleges are funded through state and local taxes. The Maricopa County (Phoenix et al) Community College District gets about 18% from the state, 60% from local property taxes, and 18% from tuition. That leaves about 4% for the Federal government. In 1994, our colleges passed a bond to improve and expand the community college system, but that was a local bond, it had nothing to do with the Federal government. And in Iowa, the percentage of Federal funding of community colleges actually fell during Clinton's presidency.
Your right it is funded for the most part locally, but what happened during Clintons term was more state money for things like education, and with a surplus budget the money marked for education was well spent. After Bush took office tuition in CT community colleges and State Universites increased and on top of that they added new fees like Design Lab fee of $100 per semester. I am sure you know all about fed money and local property tax etc. all being tied together. When one decreases the others increase. Happened here in CT after Bush took office, Fed gave less to CT so the state had less money for towns, so towns raised property taxes, and the state increased sales tax on certain items like clothes and tobacco.
Our country's job market has been changing from manufacturing to technology and information processing for years now, and we need a higher educated workforce to help keep jobs.
I'm not sure if you are aware but this technology (or rather the support there of) is "out sourced" or contracted. In many cases where "hands off" support (IE telephone support or "first level") is outsourced to big companies who then move to India (thanks to NAFTA).
In other words you can get an education in technology but you better plan on moving to India or working for a contractor. If you get lucky you MAY get a job in management and that is where the real benefits are.... if you manage to dodge the "management cuts" that come along every 7 to 10 years.
Processing and First level support can go anywhere so all that is left ( here in the US) is a narrow band of 2nd level or "repair" work and the managers that direct them.
I'm not sure if you are aware but this technology (or rather the support there of) is "out sourced" or contracted. In many cases where "hands off" support (IE telephone support or "first level") is outsourced to big companies who then move to India (thanks to NAFTA).
In other words you can get an education in technology but you better plan on moving to India or working for a contractor. If you get lucky you MAY get a job in management and that is where the real benefits are.... if you manage to dodge the "management cuts" that come along every 7 to 10 years.
Processing and First level support can go anywhere so all that is left ( here in the US) is a narrow band of 2nd level or "repair" work and the managers that direct them.
Unfortunately you are right. But that only means our job market is again changing and I'm sure it won't be towards manufacturing again. So better educated workers is going to come in handy even though there is this sweeping change happening again. We are certainly always going to need medical staff at every level. So thats not going anywhere. I also would bet that companies who maintain networks and systems will have to be local. There is still room for the tech sector, unfortunately that doesn't include some customer support centers, some data processing, and lots of programming. Fortunately for me I don't see companies like the Hartford Courant sending their Layout/graphic design etc. to pakistan, so I know I'll be secure. I guess you just have to pick the right tech sector to be secure.
IP: Logged
11:52 AM
jb1 Member
Posts: 2146 From: Tullahoma, Tennessee Registered: May 2003
Hey maaannnn (puff puff) name a president that DIDN'T have a personal adjenda when he got into the big house. (Puff puff) we is all is just the slave to the "machine" maannnn.
Now if youall wants ta be programmed to think as the media wants you ta think than I think you aint been thinkin much (puff puff.... puff)
So if you has bee hoppin on the Bush bashin band wagon then (PUFFFFFFFF.. pufff) be glad you beez a "FREE" American... (puff puff COUGH! gag hack!)..... Scusame.... Nah where wuz I ? Oh yeah "Free" to cast 1 vote and be FREE OF GWB..
BUT THANK GOD! Gore didnt get into office!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PASS!!!!
I am sick of hearing that , What would have happened if Gore was in office?? Give an idea how it would be like! Hummm lets see He probably would have went to Afghanastan and Not captured ben laden.......... that would have been terriable...... Oh yeah Bush has not capture him, instead he turns focus to Iraq. A country and dictator that could be a threat not a person that is a threat.
IP: Logged
11:57 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27083 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by Firefox: Yes! Minimum wage jobs are not for supporting families. Minimum wage jobs are entry level jobs in the labor force, and they are held usually by young people out of school. The idea is to train them to be able to move up in the work force and make more money with some job experience. If all you can handle is minimum wage jobs, you shouldn't be raising kids.
Finally, someone has the b@lls to say it. Thanks, Mark.
To expand on his point...there has been a lot of namecalling about the "greedy rich". What about the poor? Someone doesn't have enough money to properly feed, clothe, educate and house kids, but they go and have 2, 5 or 10 because they *want to*? Huh? Greedy rich, you say? What about irresponsible poor? If you don't have the money, don't fricking do it. Sorry, that's reality. What, you have to have 10 kids, so you're gonna raise my taxes to pay for it? Bulls**t. Take responsibility.
Oh, and here's another thought I had. There's been a lot of contention here in California about the lack of money for education. Our schools are in terrible shape. So I was thinking, OK, where does the majority of the money for schools come from? Property taxes. Who pays those? Home owners. If people who don't own homes have 5 or 10 kids, where does the money come from to educate them? Nowhere, that's why there's not enough money.
In theory, if a person wants a huge family, they should buy a huge house to accomodate them. If the cram 2 adults and 10 kids into a 3 room apartment, there is no additional property tax revenue to cover those 10 kids. Hence, a shortage. Add to that the millions of illegal immigrants who make very little money, pay little or no taxes, don't own property (to pay property taxes), have their kids educated in our schools, and send large amounts of money back to Mexico (and other latin american countries - this is a fact) meaning that at least some of what they make isn't recirculated into the local economy or even here in the United States.
Face it, folks, the poor do things that help create revenue shortages. I'm not anti-poor or anti-immigrant. I'm simply saying "follow the money" and solve the problems, instead of raising taxes on the rich, who aren't causing the shortage of resources.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 02-04-2004).]
designed to push the liberal side of this election.
