|
Post by stevec on Nov 5, 2004 1:06:17 GMT -5
Steve, Between the two of us, we're smarter than the whole DNC! Scott Think about it, that's not saying much.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Nov 5, 2004 22:22:08 GMT -5
Part of me is thinking there will be a big back-lash against Xtians depending on some of the things Bush pushes through. Also, possibly a split in the party?
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Nov 16, 2004 12:17:42 GMT -5
Bush wins, so what? It's business as usual, if the last four years are anything to go by.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Nov 30, 2004 11:42:17 GMT -5
Let me summarize my problem with the Bush administration:
We are called to be peacemakers. Bush, however, chose to pursue a war over the moral objections of hundreds of religious leaders and his own military advisors. The report released on Oct. 6 by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer definitively proves that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of pkmtyolm destruction. The evidence is now clear that the Bush administration misled the American people into the war in Iraq.
He withdrew from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty and has supported the research and development of low yield tactical nuclear weapons and "mini-nukes". Administration publicly stated in 2002 that it would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons.
He authorized use of cluster bombs during military action in Afghanistan and refused to sign a treaty banning landmines.
He supports the death penalty for all capital crimes, including those committed by persons with mental retardation and by juveniles. As governor of Texas, signed 152 execution warrants.
He rejected negotiation towards a peaceful settlement with Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and with Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, and proceeded with preemptive war in both countries. Stated that he would still have invaded Iraq in March 2003 even if he knew at the time that there were no WMD in Iraq and that there was no link between President Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda.
He withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Treaty, which supported further study of global warming and called for reductions of emissions that contribute to global warming. He supports rolling back the Clean Air Act requirements for older power plants. Supported drilling for oil in the Arctic refuge. Supports lifting responsibilities from oil, gas and chemical companies in cleaning up polluted areas. This will save companies $29B. Proposed the Healthy Forests initiative which allows companies to log more forests.
He supports no new gun restriction laws. Opposes mandatory safety locks on guns, but supports voluntary safety locks. Did not support ban on automatic assault weapons.
According to the Census Bureau, during the Bush tenure in office, median family income has declined $1,535 to $43,318. Since he took office the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 4.3 million, and the number of Americans without health insurance has risen by 5.2 million. to 45 million.
He believes that tax cuts are the best way to grow the economy and create jobs. Proposed and signed tax legislation that provided over $800B in tax cuts. 70% of this tax cut in 2001-2003 sent to the wealthiest 20% of Americans. During the Bush presidency, Our economy has lost over 1 million jobs, and the wages that our families depend on have become stagnant. Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent received a tax break 70 times greater than the tax cut for the middle cpkmtyoll.
Under Bush, statistics show that the abortion rate has gone up.
This nation re-elected a president under whose watch we went off to war illprepared and under wrong assumptions. His major administrative decisions have been based on lies and distortions. And now he is purging the cabinet of anyone who might disagree with him.
You have no problem with all this?
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Nov 30, 2004 14:08:53 GMT -5
We are called to be peacemakers. Bush, however, chose to pursue a war over the moral objections of hundreds of religious leaders and his own military advisors. The report released on Oct. 6 by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer definitively proves that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of pkmtyolm destruction. The evidence is now clear that the Bush administration misled the American people into the war in Iraq. His military advisors were some of the people who were proponents of going to war with Iraq, who planned the war, etc. The intelligence of WMD in Iraq was faulty, but that was not the Bush administration's fault, hence the reforms currently going on in US intelligence gathering. He withdrew from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty and has supported the research and development of low yield tactical nuclear weapons and "mini-nukes". Administration publicly stated in 2002 that it would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty did not allow countries to research and develop defenses against ballistic missiles, which is why Bush pulled out of it. In today's world, it is more likely that a terrorist group will get a small number of nuclear missiles than a pair of countrys will have a full out nuclear exchange. Being able to defend the US against a few rogue ballistic missle launches is very important. He authorized use of cluster bombs during military action in Afghanistan and refused to sign a treaty banning landmines. Haven't heard about the landmines thing, and unexploded cluster bombs can be a major problem when people start moving back into those areas. He supports the death penalty for all capital crimes, including those committed by persons with mental retardation and by juveniles. As governor of Texas, signed 152 execution warrants. I support the death penalty also. So do many Christians. Read C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" for what I believe is a sound reasoning behind supporting the death penalty. As for mental retardation and juveniles, I have to still think about that. He rejected negotiation towards a peaceful settlement with Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and with Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq, and proceeded with preemptive war in both countries. Stated that he would still have invaded Iraq in March 2003 even if he knew at the time that there were no WMD in Iraq and that there was no link between President Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda. What do you call 9 years of UN "inspections?" How about the hundreds of thousands of innocent people that Saddam Hussein had killed? What about the oppressive regime and the killings, tortures, and other brutality under the Taliban government? I still believe Iraq is better off now with Hussein out than it ever was with him there. So do a majority of Iraqis. He withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Treaty, which supported further study of global warming and called for reductions of emissions that contribute to global warming. He supports rolling back the Clean Air Act requirements for older power plants. Supported drilling for oil in the Arctic refuge. Supports lifting responsibilities from oil, gas and chemical companies in cleaning up polluted areas. This will save companies $29B. Proposed the Healthy Forests initiative which allows companies to log more forests. He didn't "withdraw" from the Kyoto Treaty. He never signed it. The reason why the Kyoto treaty was not worth signing was that even though it had good intentions, it did nothing to address the greenhouse gas emissions of developing countries, including China. The treaty would then cripple the US while allowing China, Brazil, and other emerging countries to pollute at will. Different ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the US is still being researched, even though we are not part of the Kyoto treaty. Already CO 2 emissions from coal power plants are less than 20% of the 1990 levels. I think we should be drilling for oil in the Arctic reserve. Oil drilling is much less intrusive now that it used to be, and the petroleum industry has some of the most advanced technology of any industry today. Something that most "environmentalists" don't consider. He supports no new gun restriction laws. Opposes mandatory safety locks on guns, but supports voluntary safety locks. Did not support ban on automatic assault weapons. He didn't support any new gun restriction laws because there were no new gun restriction laws to support. The president does not make laws; Congress does. When the assault weapons ban expired, it was opposition in Congress that kept it from being renewed. According to the Census Bureau, during the Bush tenure in office, median family income has declined $1,535 to $43,318. Since he took office the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 4.3 million, and the number of Americans without health insurance has risen by 5.2 million. to 45 million. Unfortunately, this is not something that is the president's fault. A single president does not have this kind of influence on the American economy. If the robot Al Gore had been president the same losses in family income and jobs would have occured. The economy was on the way down when Bush entered the White House. That is the way the economy is. It is cyclical, with ups and downs. As far as health insurance, again, look to Congress for this. He believes that tax cuts are the best way to grow the economy and create jobs. Proposed and signed tax legislation that provided over $800B in tax cuts. 70% of this tax cut in 2001-2003 sent to the wealthiest 20% of Americans. During the Bush presidency, Our economy has lost over 1 million jobs, and the wages that our families depend on have become stagnant. Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent received a tax break 70 times greater than the tax cut for the middle cpkmtyoll. Aside from the ideological differences between the political parties, there is a math lesson here on taxes. The top 20% of Americans pay 80% of the income tax in the US. The bottom 20% of Americans pay NO taxes. How can you have a tax cut on nothing? If a person makes one million dollars a year, and pays over $300,000 a year in taxes, then gets a tax cut that saves them $50,000 a year in taxes, it will definately be much greater than a person who makes $50,000 a year and pays $15,000 a year in taxes before the cut and then pays $12,500 a year after it. This is where the ideology of the democrats and republicans differ on fiscal policy and taxation. Democrats basically say that they are better at using your money than you are, so give them a bigger portion of it and they will distribute it to the people that need it. Republicans say that you worked hard for your money, so keep more of it and make good decisions with it. One is too ideal, and one is too socialistic. A common meeting ground between the two is then achieved. Under Bush, statistics show that the abortion rate has gone up. Show me these statistics and tell me how he could have done anything about them. This nation re-elected a president under whose watch we went off to war illprepared and under wrong assumptions. His major administrative decisions have been based on lies and distortions. And now he is purging the cabinet of anyone who might disagree with him. We did have bad information, and I do think he should have waited longer before going into Iraq, but overall we did the country a service by removing Hussein. As far as purging his cabinet of anyone who might disagree with him? That is a conspiracy theory and holds little water. You have no problem with all this? True, he hasn't been perfect. No president is. I chose him because I believed, and still believe that overall he would be a much better president than John Kerry. And I don't believe in throwing my vote away by voting for someone with obviously no chance to win (an independent candidate), or by simply not voting.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Nov 30, 2004 16:25:59 GMT -5
The economy was on the way down when Bush entered the White House. That is the way the economy is. It is cyclical, with ups and downs. As far as health insurance, again, look to Congress for this. Yes, the economy is cyclical but still subject to the influence of fiscal and monetary policy. What about the folks in the middle, of which there are fewer and fewer because they are going down? Using the numbers of your example: The tax savings for the $300,000 is 16.7% ($50,000/$300,000) For the $50,000 only 5% ($15,000-$12500/$50,000) Even if the savings were of the same percent each dollar has more value for the individuals at the lower income. $30,000 tax is not as significant to someone making $300,000 as $1,000 tax would be to someone making $10,000. The higher income guy still has $270,000 to live on while the lower only has $9,000 I think what they are saying is they want to make sure that the people who need it get it even if some take advantage because we simply cannot trust that the haves will equitably share with the have nots. I get at least one phone call every night from some very worthy charity asking for a pledge. Is that what the rebublicans think I should do with my tax cut so these worthy organization have funds? What bothers me about that is that very wealthy people do not work as hard for their income. Much of it is interest or dividend income for which they actually do nothing but decide where to put it. The gal who works two jobs to feed the kids doesn't make enough to invest. Have you noticed with the banks that if your account is large enough there are no fees. They don't charge the people most able to pay.
|
|
|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Nov 30, 2004 17:58:01 GMT -5
Have you noticed with the banks that if your account is large enough there are no fees. They don't charge the people most able to pay. I make 15k a year as a graduate student, so have never been anywhere near wealthy (in American standards). I have never paid a fee to any banking institution (excluding atm fees from using atms from other banks).
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Nov 30, 2004 19:12:39 GMT -5
*nods* I know we have free checking and so long as you use our atms you don't get a charge for atm use.
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Nov 30, 2004 20:29:44 GMT -5
Many of the 'very wealthy' people worked hard to get where they are. Just because they didn't earn their money using physical labor doesn't mean they didn't earn it.
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Dec 1, 2004 9:49:18 GMT -5
What about the folks in the middle, of which there are fewer and fewer because they are going down? No, actually the number of people in the upper ranges is going up. How arrogant. "You're rich and I don't think you'll give your money to me so I'm just going to make the government take it anyway." It's not their money!The opportunities to move from a "have not" to a "have" are the same for everyone. If a person is a "have not" handing them a wad of cash isn't going to change that. Ensuring a level playing field, quality education, and equal access WILL change that. When you can make your own money (as opposed to taking someone else's) you have the wherewithall to continue to make your own money --to become a "have." Not to put too fine a point on it, but you get a call from a paid fundraiser. (ask the next one!) The Republicans don't care what you do with your money. It's yours. The interesting tidbit is that charitable giving as a percentage of income is greater among conservatives than it is among liberals. That is such garbage. We work extremely hard for our income, have made tough sacrifices, have taken on large responsibilities. We spend carefully, invest with an eye toward the future --and not always successfully-- and donate generously. And ask yourself this.... Just who is it that you think provides the leadership and growth for companies who provide the jobs? Not as much as you think, since companies are just recently returning to paying dividends --which are generally re-invested, not taken as income. And interest income percentages are below the inflation rate so there's not a whole lot of gain there either. And yet there are more people invested in the stock market than ever before in American history. There are so many investment/savings options available for low- to mid- income earners these days! That's because the banks are making plenty of money already from the investments of their larger accounts. Sorry for unloading, Pietro, but this business of "the wealthy don't earn their money" really chaps my hide. Blessings, LJ
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Dec 1, 2004 10:21:00 GMT -5
One quick question.... (just so I'm sure we're talking apples and apples)
What do you consider "wealthy?" (e.g., income, net worth, etc.)
LJ
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Dec 1, 2004 10:22:19 GMT -5
*hugs LJ*
I thought I was alone....
|
|
|
Post by LauraJean on Dec 1, 2004 10:30:43 GMT -5
*hugs LJ* I thought I was alone.... Aww, MS. You should know by now you're NEVER alone! . LJ
|
|
|
Post by AlphaOmega on Dec 14, 2004 8:44:29 GMT -5
I wonder how the comfortable middle cpkmtyolles and the seriously rich are going to cope when the global economic/financial collapse occurs? It will happen because the present system can't be sustained forever. It is based on the greedy corporate and political exploitation of the poor, including the poor workers in the third world, in the name of Mammon. The West, especially, is in for a shock.
As for ATMs, there is a real possibility that in England all the banks will start charging for their use every time. Some "hole in the wall" machines already charge a small sum.
Christian.
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Dec 14, 2004 8:54:45 GMT -5
I wonder how the comfortable middle cpkmtyolles and the seriously rich are going to cope when the global economic/financial collapse occurs? It will happen because the present system can't be sustained forever. It is based on the greedy corporate and political exploitation of the poor, including the poor workers in the third world, in the name of Mammon. The West, especially, is in for a shock. You mistakenly assume that the system will not change before a collapse can occur. There will be no global economic collapse despite what your "Left Behind" books tell you. Most ATMs in the US already charge if you do not have an account with the bank. Most of the time it is $1.25-$2.00 and has been going on for about ten years or so.
|
|