One last point: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20040227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_budget_6 That alone should be enough to throw them out of office. Your grand kids will be paying this off long after you're gone. Art
Here's a simple question. If you make enough to own a Ferrari, would you rather be able to purchase it to enjoy for yourself, or give it (in taxes) to someone on the dole? My reluctant vote is for Bush (admittedly, somewhat of a tax-and-spend republican). At least he has a spine, has earned our country some respect through keeping his committments, and stimulated the plummeting, over-taxed economy he inherited. Even if he arguably might be dumb - like a fox!!! It surprises me that some leftists (on this forum perhaps?) own Ferraris. If the libs and pinkos really believe what they preach why don't they sell those ostentatious objects of material status and donate the $$ to helping homosexuals fight for their right to marry. Or they could send in extra taxes voluntarily to feed the homeless. After all, liberal government knows better than you how to compassionately allocate the fruits of your labor. All you lemmings, please vote for the left and quickly slip back into your high-tax-bracket, salary-earning coma....
I'm a registered Democrat, own a business, keep 30 people gainfully employed, pay my share of taxes, vote my conscience, and do not blindy follow any party ideology. And yes, I own a Ferrari, a Porsche, a house, have kids who go to public school, and on and on. So, don't blindly lump people into groups. Ferrari=Conservative, Democrat with money=Trust fund? Democrat=leftist. Suprisingly to you, not all Republicans are ulta-conservative either, just read the thread about gay marriage, and you'll see what I mean. http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9402
The problem as I see it is that some of those on the right don't see the entire picture: Sure, I'd rather not pay taxes, but I do understand that this country is a community. Strange word, but true. If we don't treat the country as a community, sooner or later there will be grief. That may not bother those with a rather short time frame view, but it bothers me a lot. We have to make sure that those who aren't able to afford Ferraris have the opportunity to try to work their way there. Under a good many of the conservatives' position we won't fund their schools, we won't provide meals for them when they need them, we'll reduce the tax on those most able to pay them, and short change those who need the assistance. Be clear: I'm certainly not advocating endless welfare. Clinton took care of that in 1998, when we passed the 5 year limit on welfare, so that's not an issue. However, a good portion of relief goes to women with kids, whose husbands have abandoned them, or for other reasons are unable to provide for them. Their kids will ultimately end up in our society, and we can determine whether we'll lock them up, because their criminals and not productive as we've been doing for the last 20 30 years, or we can spend the money now, make sure they get a good education, and become productive members of our society. Or you can cut my taxes, and I'll be able to buy another Ferrari. To me this is a pretty clear choice if you look at the issues in the long term. As to the republicans and democrats: The democrats would have to step up to the plate and pay the price now. The republican policies will cost the same if not more, you'll just pay it a little later. I'm reminded of a comment by a friend of mine: Micahel Sabaresse (a very, very bright guy: buys distressed companies, fixes them, sells them for a profit. Did that with a rack company, whose name starts with a Y, sold it for 8 figures after buying for 20k): "What were going to do with the lower class is put half of them in jail, and hire the other half to watch them." He was making a very caustic comment, but there is some reality to that issue. In our current debate, no one is discussing these issues in those terms. Art
Art -- The flaw I find in your argument is that it (eventually) takes infinite resources to keep that system running -- not easy to do on a finite planet. IMO, our previous (and continued) policy of unfettered (if not promoted) human reproduction is no longer is a positive thing for our species. (I confess I have a dark view for the future, and think the likelihood of finding some new great energy source is nil ...)
Steve: The facts say otherwise. Look at the employment, welfare deficit numbers from 99 and 00. People were moving from welfare to employment, we were spending more on schools, the government was collecting more money, we were paying off the deficit. All of those lead me to believe that had the same attitude been in place for another 10 - 15 years, we'd have essentially done what we could to eliminate the proverty that was capable of being solved (we have some people that are too stupid to work, too physically unable to work, too crazy to work, and that portion of the problem isn't solvable). Where we are now is going to increase the problem, not decease it. Art
Put GW in a live debate with anybody and he will come out the clear loser. Of course this would have to be without several weeks of preparations by his staff, writers, advisors, etc... In an instant, non-planned debate regarding almost any aspect of government, he doesn't stand a chance with anybody. It's a shame how the citizens of this country could elect somebody so incompetent & unqualified for the job. Regarding the WMD issue, check this out - http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/
And so are you to make a post like that. Why don't you write your reason and do so lntelligently like Art has.
Well, except for Clinton's December 1998 bombing of Iraq. However that was commonly believed to be a diversion from the Monica/Impeachment mess that was heating up at the time. John
At least DN35's terse comment will actually fit on a bumpersticker. I'll be you meant to type "decrease" - same difference when you think about it, though. Same can be said of those on the left - take your views on gay marriage, for example - you describe (aspects of) the bible as being a 4,000 year old rumor. I'm not a church-goer, nor do I give the deity described from cover-to-cover the time of day (unless I'm cursing, which I do early and often) in my daily life - however, I respect that which is written and taken to be Gospel, if you will, by those who interpret the "good book" as being their guide to (after)life. Therefore, I will capably quote passages which are in Concordance with any given sect, all without decrying homosexuality itself. As you well know - the default choice for swearing-in is a Bible, which can be changed to another book by any witness or officer, upon request. Since you're a long-term thinker that sees the entire picture: How often is (or) do you see the default choice changed, upon request? What would you rather the default choice was? How long do you think "In God We Trust" will be on currency? How long would the same quote be on currency if you could help it? How does this relate to Bumperstickers? I might be Godless, but I'm not part of the [(Let's see to it that the US is) Godless] Hordes which seems to go hand-in-hand with Demolitioncrats such as yourself. Long-term thinking on the part of the left? Hardly. With that in mind, here's a couple of bumpersticker ideas: Republicans: Republicans in '04 - Take it or leave it - Keep America a community where God exists. Democrats: Democrats in '04 - Take it or leave it - Make America a community where God ceases to exist.
Wax: I've been complaining about the lack of a spell check. I use that at work and its destroyed my ability to spell. However as to the substantive issues: Who cares about single sex marriges. As you can see from the postings, time will take care of that problem, since in the under 40 year old age group, they favor allowing it. The issue about religion is truly a joke. I have absolutely no problem in you practizing (sp) your religion, nor anyone else doing so. What I have objection to, is your shoving it in my face. I think that those who believe have the right to do so, but they surely don't have the right to use my tax money, my government, and other public assets to push it. We have a secular government just as the founders wished it. If you go back to some of the posts that existed before you came on board, you'll see the resources which show that quite a few of the founders were either agnostic or didn't believe at all. You can start with Jefferson. Look up the term diest and you'll see what I mean. A classic example of following this logic is the approach the government is now taking on fetal research. Cures for a good many illinesses will be found using those techniques, but probably in places like Britian, Germany, etc. I wonder if the nut cases are going to ban use of these new cures, even if their discovered outside of the US. My money is on them trying to do so, claiming immorality. The true issues in this election is what we are going to do with our country, I think that the right is taking us towards a future which will not provide well for the residents here, and we should all take a long hard look at that issue. Look at the numbers: in comparison to just a few years ago, we've fallen quite a bit, our standard of living has dropped, our currency has been devalued, and the cost of living has risen. I suggest that if someone working for you had that track record, he's be out the front door, with a foot mark on his bottom. Art
Art -- I didn't say that to not follow the " infinitely compassionate" philosophy you outlined was a "better" thing to do (or that even doing the "Republican" thing would ultimately consume less planetary resources). My point was that really no group has a real plan for long-term sustainability because no group has any desire to curb human population growth. Although things were getting "better" by your standards in the timeframe you quoted, the planetary resources consumed to achieve that "improvement" were still greatly increasing.
Steve: Wealth takes care of the population problem. Look at the wealthiest countries: The birth rate drops in almost direct correlation to the increase in leisure and wealth, and more importantly education. The least educated have the highest birth rate. Obviously no knowes for sure, but it sure seems that if we try to educate and get wealth to the poor, the growth rate will stop. Art
Art -- I certainly prefer your optimism for the future to my pessimism, but I must now say: "the facts say otherwise" (i.e., as the cumulative human wealth/knowledge has increased, the total size of the "poor" population has greatly increased). Sure wish I could stop by in ~1000 years or so to see how it's working out .
art, for the most part, i think your comments in this thread have been well thought through and expressed - and i even agree with you on some of them. but of course there are a couple where i differ. you point towards an increase in the poverty rolls over the last few years; you also mention that our standard of living and currency have declined during the same time. you are insinuating that these are effects of the bush policies over that same period. this is somewhat false. we can't forget that our country has one of the highest immigration rates in the world, legal and illegal, and something like 15,000 people/day of which about 7-8k are illegal, and usually dirt poor and uneducated. this is a constant burden on our system and ability to keep moving people up the ladder. our standard of living has only declined by about the same rate as that of the rest of the world, but still leaves us well above the rest of the pack. in other words if the usa standard was 100 and france's was 90 and bolivia was 40, then the numbers now are 90, 80 and 30 respectively. all of the world has gone down similar amounts due to the world economy having gone into a tailspin post 9/11, tech crash etc. its not as if the usa standard has fallen and everyone else has improved; and furthermore as we dig ourselves back out, the usa standard will probably increase at a far faster pace than everybody else. the currency decline is a convolution of many factors, triggered again by 9/11 and the stock market decline, but then furthered by our current account deficit etc. however, the currency drop is a fantastic thing for our country. its roughly equivalent to an additional 1-2% lower interest rate for companies, paired with our already low fed rate, this helps usa inc compete overseas. the fears of many journalists that suddenly china and japan will dump all their US savings bonds and tank our economy are pretty stupid given our symbiotic relationship with those countries - if we can't buy their stuff they die too - so it won't happen. in the meantime the weak usd is also helping sway some of the spending habits of our fellow countrymen towards goods made in the usa vs those made elsewhere, just by virtue of the price and not patriotism, which is anohter boon for us. all i am trying to point out, is that some of the things that you point to as symptoms of our demise, are really only part of the cyclical nature of the economy and labor/immigration constants. we saw the same thing at some point during the 70's, and again during the early 80's, and to a lesser degree in the early 90's. it just happens and then we rev up again and keep going.
Anyone else tired of hearing "9/11" as a reason for our continued economic problems? 9/11 itself, while tragic in loss of life and minor property damage, should be having a very minor effect by now. Yes, it caused some problems for airlines and the increased security has some additional costs, but we can't keep saying that 9/11 is the reason we still have a poor economy (in many ways, though not everyone is hurt of course). Bush's chosen response to 9/11, i.e. trying to connect Iraq to it and spend a $1bil a day on that war while alienating most of the world, is possibly a cause of our continued economic problems however. -Slim
Ross: You've described history, and for the most part you're correct. However, we'll never know what would have happened without Bush, et al in office. Clearly, he has contributed to our decline in my humble opinion. Remember when Clinton made the deal with Greenspan, put the tax increase into effect, the common opposition was that it would kill the economy, but it didn't and it lead to the longer growth in our history. We'll never know. What I do know is that you judge people on results, Nixon was always afraid of hiring an articulate incompetent. Well, I think we got one here (Bush may not be articulate, but his supporting cast certainly is). I do know that we went to war over a mistake, when if we waited, we probably wouldn't have spent the money, lives, and effort on what we now know were false data. We pissed about 100B away on nothing with that little venture, not to mention the lives and the effect upon us around the world. That alone should cause us to eject him from office. I also know that while we considered the war and the cost thereof, Bush et al put into effect a large tax cut which essentially was weighted to the well off. That smacks of LBJ, and we all know where that led. An example of this stupidity is the current gas prices: Iraq was producing about 1.5 to 3.0 Million barrels of oil daily for export. Their production may well be back to pre-war, but those Iraqi who didn't like the idea of us trashing them, then using their oil to rebuild them have made sure that we can't export the oil, but blowing up the export pipes. You'll note that they haven't attacked the actual drilling and production facilities, just the pipelines. Gas here in the SF Bay area is now about 2.25 for regular with estimatets that it may rise to 3.00/gallon. The conservatives had made a huge mistake in their commentary about the Saudis because now the Saudis refuse to increase their production to solve the problem. This is clearly a lack of vision, and they should be thrown out office for that little blunder. When taken as a whole, perhaps they didn't do everything I've accused them of, but they've done enough so that they've disqualified themselves from leading this country, in my humble opinion. The only question is that are the Democrats going to let them off the hook. The great thing that Dean did is to supply a little spine to those who are now running. They had none before. Art
art, again is disagree with a lot of your contentions, but that will probably be the case till we both keel over, so no use continuing the argument. but i will point out, that you are wrong about prices at the pump. iraq's latest production figure is 2.53 mbd, this is higher than pre-war, and most of it is being exported for real money (not given at half price to syria for example) and the overall price is higher so the income will be greater for that country than ever before. and they will rebuild the system completely over time with this money, much like the marsahll plan rebuilt germany's industry so that it was more efficient than anything else in europe. the price hike is worldwide, not just the usa. and the reasons are cumulative over the last 2 years, and include not only the war in iraq but among many reasons: the strike in venezuela, opec's amazing discipline, a close to 30pct rise in chinese consumption which has caught the world by surprise, and not least - the usa's continued enormous appetite for energy. california has its own special reasons for higher pump prices which you can lay at the feet of the tree huggers - but thats a separate issue. once again you are taking disparate negative events that you see and attributing all of them to the bush admin. this is false reasoning. if you maintain that logic, then at least credit the various positive events to bush as well - at least the faulty logic would be balanced then ! gasoline prices in the usa are still the lowest in the industrialized world, due to the low taxes tacked on. when you start paying above $6/gallon then talk to me !
Art, it's been awhile since I have been envolved in one of these discussions but feel the need to respond to this comment "That may not bother those with a rather short time frame view, but it bothers me a lot. We have to make sure that those who aren't able to afford Ferraris have the opportunity to try to work their way there. Under a good many of the conservatives' position we won't fund their schools, we won't provide meals for them when they need them, we'll reduce the tax on those most able to pay them, and short change those who need the assistance." That is just plain bull! All one need do is look at the results of this grand idea of yours to see that it will not work. Welfare is not new. It has been around in one form or another at least since the FDR administration and so far has made no difference. The crime rates have continued to increase, taxes have gone up, the number of people on welfare has increased, ect, ect, ect, and the government has gotten bigger. When are you guys going to realize that we can not solve everyones problems. When we try to all we do is create an underclass. Besides, why should people be forced to be charitable which is what welfare is. I also object to the notion that those who have it should be the ones responsible for this plan of yours. Why not be fair about it and say that everyone must pay equally. I might get behind you then. Your idea is basically communisim. The fact is I too want to help people that can't help themselves but I don't need the Goverment to do this for me. They should not be envolved in the charity bussiness, they should leave it to people that are much more capable than they are. The bottom line is if the government continues to get envolved in more and more it will not be long before taxes will be so outrageous (as if they already aren't) that we all will be on welfare!
Ross, I would also like to respond to this comment "as for those who don't think there is a difference between dems and reps, think about your taxes." I would like to point out that taxes have contiuned to increase since I can remember and if I am not mistaken, both parties have been in power about the same amount of time. Sure they cut them once in awhile but never more than the previous raise. All tax cuts do is get people elected so they can raise them back up later. The fact is neither party really wants taxes to go down, they just want us to think they do. Money is thier power base and as such they all want to get as much of it to spend as we will tolerate. The only difference between the two parties is how they get it. The Democrats get it outright by taxing us and the Republicans get it by deficit spending. The end result is the same, we foot the bill. I realize that there are certain things we need to function as a country but I would be willing to bet we could eliminate at least half of what the goverment is envolved in right now. Can you imagine what it would be like if suddenly taxes were half what they are right now? Can't you see that if we continue to do things the way we are now the government will only get bigger. Every time they pass a new law or create a new agency they will need to hire someone to administrate it, enforce it, ect, ect, ect which means we will need even more goverment employees and all the infrastructure that goes with them. Who is going to pay for all of this? You know who, the people that have it! Now I hate to complain and not offer up a solution so here are a few things I think we could eliminate right off. The IRS, ATF, FDA, Social security, Welfare, Department of homeland security, Department of public safety, and the list goes on. I think you get my point or at least I hope you do. BTW I mean no offense by any of this, it's just the way I see it!
Charles: You can't just pick out a portion of a response and think that its the entire statement. I wasn't talking about welfare, I was talking about training, schools, and opportunity. That's what's been cut from the budget: classroom size, school equipment, afterschool activities, etc. I stand by what I said, and you can look out the window and see something is wrong. Take a look at the numbers: higher unemployment, lower jobs, etc. You can't keep saying everything is ok, when everyone can see it isn't. This time the king can't say he has clothes when he doesn't: too many people are watching. Art
